# Ron Paul



## Gentlemen (Nov 18, 2010)

He believes in too many conspiracy theories(NWO), he doesn't accept evolution or climate change, and he wants to end the EPA. He has some good ideas, but not enough to overturn the bad Ideas he has.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Out of all the Republican candidates, he is by far the best one, but that's not saying much. Personally, I would much rather see someone like Kucinich in the White House.


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

@_Sovereign_ _"I have always noticed a big libertarian streak in NTs. We all love our freedom"._

Yes indeed. 

While the guy isnt perfect, he is certainly better than Obama, and definitely Rick Perry, who comes from a planet called Texas


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

freeeekyyy said:


> I think he's great. But he'll never win. Too libertarian for the typical Republican.


Yeah, no chance right? he's only second in most straw polls by a fraction of a percent and doesn't buy votes either... sigh

sometimes I wonder if people even realize they're just parroting O'reilly's, as well as all other TV pundits talking points.



childofprodigy said:


> Ron Paul is one of the very few politicians that actually talks sense
> 
> unfortunately he will not prevail because democracy is just a grown up version of prom queen/king popularity contest even when the popular thing to do is to drive off a cliff


So he won't get your vote because god forbid you'd 'lose' your elections right?.... better keep the swag associated with voting in yet another establishment candidate, if no other reason that for bragging rights.



Gentlemen said:


> He believes in too many conspiracy theories(NWO), he doesn't accept evolution or climate change, and he wants to end the EPA. He has some good ideas, but not enough to overturn the bad Ideas he has.


He doesn't believe in any conspiracy, he just sees things for what they are, let me guess, you haven't researched anything about this ''NWO'' thing? the very use of the word conspiracy theory is actually a sign that you probably picked this up off of TV... my challenge stands, who else do you deem as a better candidate?



skycloud86 said:


> Out of all the Republican candidates, he is by far the best one, but that's not saying much. Personally, I would much rather see someone like Kucinich in the White House.


Kucinich has some good ideas too, and is one of the few people in the house who has this thing called standard, but he still compromises and voted for obamacare, which is a bad plan(do NOT confuse and translate this to ''free medicare is bad'')



Dear Sigmund said:


> @_Sovereign_ _"I have always noticed a big libertarian streak in NTs. We all love our freedom"._
> 
> Yes indeed.
> 
> While the guy isnt perfect, he is certainly better than Obama, and definitely Rick Perry, who comes from a planet called Texas


true enough.. 


To all others quoted here, the challenge stands, post your candidate, or stop regurgitating the tired MSM rhetoric please...

as for myself I'll be voting for Obama, I love a man who stands by his promises and principles...






at least he believes in evolution and global warming.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Dear Sigmund said:


> @_Sovereign_ _"I have always noticed a big libertarian streak in NTs. We all love our freedom"._
> 
> Yes indeed.
> 
> While the guy isnt perfect, he is certainly better than Obama, and definitely Rick Perry, who comes from a planet called Texas


Ron Paul is also from Texas.



Cover3 said:


> Kucinich has some good ideas too, and is one of the few people in the house who has this thing called standard, but he still compromises and voted for obamacare, which is a bad plan(do NOT confuse and translate this to ''free medicare is bad'')


Yeah Kucinich caving on that was pretty disappointing :\ At least Sanders got increased funding for community health centers into the bill for his vote (though Obama got rid of that as part of the December 2010 budget deal, lol, master negotiator).

BTW I don't accept either major party but I think Ron Paul is pretty awful too. I don't think people need to put forward a better candidate in order to have an opinion on Ron Paul though. Like what if I think all the major candidates AND Ron Paul are crappy? If Paul was sincere in his policy goals and actually worked to enact them it might be better than the other major candidates in terms of the world as a whole simply because our military empire would be drawn down, but Paul also wants massive deregulation of corporations and business, wants a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, and thinks states should be able to make laws establishing religion and restricting abortion, same-sex marriage, and sexual practices without interference from the federal government (We the People Act). No more military empire would be cool, but I'd like people to still be able to have abortions and not worry about going to jail for buying a dildo.


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

Mason117 said:


> On most counts, this video sums up how I feel about Ron Paul and his supporters, but less angry.


that guy is a retard, he should have himself committed, I didn't need to watch past the first minute

"paulites" what a moron, of course he has no proof

Ron Paul seems like the least stupid of the candidates, the special interest groups hate him ( pro Fed Reserve greedy bankers, the military industrial complex) so he must be good


----------



## Transcendence (Apr 25, 2011)

As if Ron Paul was the only one clever enough to figure out that the soldiers weren't coming home.


----------



## error (Feb 10, 2011)

Listen, I'm not a huge fan of big government. But I've become more and more concerned about the power that big industry and big business has over the government, culture and currancy. I used to be more libertarian because, like I said, I was afraid of what the government was doing, how they could control my and other citizen's lives, how the could oppress and demean the less fortunate and the disempowered. But than I realized that corporations not only could do this, but they're actually actively trying to do this. And whether or not this is also the aim of the government is moot, because the government is already castrated as it is. Right now, the governments biggest problem is that it CAN'T do anything. And everything it is doing that is hurting people, it's doing for the corporations. We get rid of the government, we're just getting rid of the middleman and we can be directly enslaved to the corporations.

We need an institution that protects people from having corporations shit all over our liberties and freedoms. I think that should be the governments main priority.


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

More than likely Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination. I think every elected official is going to compromise somewhere. Its a matter of what your values are, and what your conscious can live with . They are presidential candidates, not Messiahs.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

TheOpenDoor said:


> As if Ron Paul was the only one clever enough to figure out that the soldiers weren't coming home.


The point wasn't about RP's cleverness, in fact I wanted to find the unedited 'you can take it to the bank' obama statement simply to make the point that lies sell.



Shahada said:


> Ron Paul is also from Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yeah, but you're slightly off base on same-sex marriages, this goes back to the simplistic ''what if states started legalizing slavery uhr uhr??'' argument, in fact in the Iowa debate he stated that his position on marriage is simply that he doesn't want the federal government to regulate any definition of marriage, hence heterosexuals could marry in church, or anywhere else they deem meaningful for their union, same for gays, and I guess other marriages categories which I can't think of any right now, and the same thing for abortion, as far as I understand it his position is that life begins at conception(I actually kind of disagree with this position of his), but he isn't as foolish as to think that abortions can or would be outlawed at all, despite his strong conviction towards the issue, in fact I've dug up a few videos of his where he acknowledges that abortions did happen in the past even though the stigma attached to that was strong back then, but he doesn't want to use the federal government to outlaw it totally, but leave it to the states, which I don't think realistically any state would have much support in favor of such draconian legislation, but I do get your point, you have every right to disagree on those positions of his.

as for religion, he believes a school should have the right to be strictly christian, if that is the desire of the establishment there, just as there could be strictly Muslim schools, and people like to pretend that it would bring back segregation and all that garb., but the fact is that you'd still have the right to establish schools that accept everyone regardless of religion, which I don't think is a problem.


What bothers me is how all of his most radical(considered by some to be radical anyway) positions are always brought out and mis-represented in an attempt to muddy the other issues he addresses that are really going to make a positive impact on people's lives, the military empire is one of them, but the de-regulations you mention only tell half the story, the way it stands now, big business is even MORE at an advantage now with their politically acceptable collusion with the FED(and government) with insider programs like TARP, as well as the legal protection for despicable fraud crimes(to name only one) most of these phantom institutions which live off of the latter, so the way I understand it is the kind of de-regulations he speaks of would force these big corporations to bankruptcy for the most part, and allow honest competitors to get a chance to, well, compete. If these deregulations and reforms of the monetary system would permit these big entities to further their market dominance, don't you think the MSM would actually _not_ fail to at least mention him? The way I see it they don't want him anywhere near the presidency because of fears that he might actually bring down the crony capitalist system they have been feeding off of, amongst other things.. 

I think this is one of the reasons they feed the people these lesser priority issues when they mention Paul, but when it comes to other warhawks candidates, none of their insane beliefs are even cast as worth discussing or debating, hell sometimes they even accept it as normal, I don't see ANY talk regarding unilateral presidential declaration of war through the UN at all, it's just not discussed, or referred to on a matter-of-factly basis, anything goes when it comes to Obama(or any other estab. candidate), and anything goes when it comes to their insanities, but when Ron Paul doesn't lie about his beliefs(let's face it, the man is intelligent enough to realize some of his views are pretty unpopular, and he could easily play the snake game of the changed man and win more voters, but he sticks with his ideals and doesn't mold his personal opinions based on PC), he gets blasted.. I respect your right to disagree with him on alot of issues, because I do too, but considering this country's people mindset, I believe he would bring more good than bad, despite his beliefs, a lot of former presidents had much sicker and twisted beliefs and fantasies than merely being pro-life which they kept secret, and the people still loved them.

To conclude, no his policies aren't perfect, and his views aren't either(to some), but keep in mind that he will not/ doesn't want to be a dictator, and overall his policies aren't centered around forcing people to view the world through his eyes, merely to allow people their individual freedoms and promote peace and cooperation between nation, instead of perpetual war and cheaply made-up corporate rhetoric. 

E: holy fuck, this wall of text makes me dizzy.
E2:


error said:


> We need an institution that protects people from having corporations shit all over our liberties and freedoms. I think that should be the governments main priority.


except their current priority is protecting and taking on the losses of mega-corporations and passing them on to the people... the 14 tril deficit doesn't emerge out of food stamps or social programs... how's that for a middle man? this is akin to stockholm syndrome


----------



## error (Feb 10, 2011)

I completely agree that right now the governments priorities are WAY off. They are protecting and shielding the mega corporations. And it's not like it's the entire government in league with big business. It's just that there are probably more politicians who are corrupt and taking bribes and endorsements from companies than politicians who actually want to help the middle class.

You know what, I'm not Stygian capitalism, not one bit. I just think that there is a point were, if you don't do a bit of regulation than that free market is worthless because you've got monopolies strangling any and all opposition. Than people have no choice but to get there goods and services from one place that has no competition. That's not a free market! That's a monopoly, and in that case everyone but the people on top LOSE!

I think that small and local businesses are the purest form of capitalism and the free market and if anything is worth preserving it's local economies.


----------



## Coppertony (Jun 22, 2011)

From the libertarian perspective, same-sex marriage is a funky scenario. On one hand, the libertarian objects to gay couples being denied the benefits that are prescribed to straight couples. On the other hand, the libertarian objects to these benefits being provided by government (Libertarians tend to prefer lower levels of intervention), as well as decisions on the federal level impacting policy on the state level (Libertarians tend towards greater federalism). So the problem is, do we push for equal access to the benefits and risk further entrenching the benefits programs themselves, or do we not expand the benefits and allow gross inequality to continue?

EDIT: Since we're on the topic of corporate regulation, one way around would be to integrate the regulation into the criminal law rather than implementing restrictions through the executive. This might help prevent some of the regulatory capture that we've seen infect most levels of the American government, and by building transparent foundations you make it a lot easier to do business vs. dealing with large, opaque bureaucracies.

The ultimate hope being that we could allow people like this (



) to continue creating wealth and jobs, while protecting people and the environment.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

Dear Sigmund said:


> @_Sovereign_ _"I have always noticed a big libertarian streak in NTs. We all love our freedom"._
> 
> Yes indeed.
> 
> While the guy isnt perfect, he is certainly better than Obama, and definitely Rick Perry, who comes from a planet called Texas


I agree with you. Even though Paul is also from Texas, it seems like his head is a bit better screwed on. Perry is an opportunist, much like Nixon. He switched parties not much more than a decade ago. Now, only a few years later, he's pandering to the far-right. Something smells fishy here...


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

Check this link out, I found it very informative


OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Cover3 said:


> To conclude, no his policies aren't perfect, and his views aren't either(to some), but keep in mind that he will not/ doesn't want to be a dictator, and overall his policies aren't centered around forcing people to view the world through his eyes, merely to allow people their individual freedoms and promote peace and cooperation between nation, instead of perpetual war and cheaply made-up corporate rhetoric.
> 
> E: holy fuck, this wall of text makes me dizzy.
> E2:
> ...


sorry I just snipped you to cut down on the length, hope you don't mind. At any rate yeah, I agree that economic issues and foreign policy issues are very important. I think Paul is mostly correct on foreign policy, but mostly wrong on economic and social issues (I think there's a thin line separating the two anyway). I do think it is a good thing that there is someone with such visibility out there with a radical anti-war stance, so he's good for the country's discourse in that respect. But things like the We the People Act (read that link closely: The law specifically says it would allow state governments to make laws regarding "same-sex marriage, religion, abortion, and sexual practices" while making it illegal for federal courts to rule on those decisions. This means that under such a law, hypothetically, Louisiana could ban sodomy or sex toys or something and federal courts would not be able to rule it unconstitutional) and his economic policies I just cannot tolerate and cannot support. I don't support the lesser of two evils argument when it applies to the Dem and GOP candidates, so I also don't support the lesser of three evils argument when you make it Dem and GOP candidates + Ron Paul. Sorry.

Also I hate to keep pounding this issue but Paul does want abortion banned on the federal level (though I was wrong about him supporting a constitutional amendment, he might, but he doesn't seem to have publicly stated so that I can find). He introduced the Sanctity of Life Act that would have defined life as beginning at conception at the federal level. I'm sorry to say but Paul is a hypocrite on the abortion issue, he is perfectly happy to abandon his state's rights rhetoric and work to ban it on the federal level.


----------



## freeeekyyy (Feb 16, 2010)

Cover3 said:


> Yeah, no chance right? he's only second in most straw polls by a fraction of a percent and doesn't buy votes either... sigh
> 
> sometimes I wonder if people even realize they're just parroting O'reilly's, as well as all other TV pundits talking points.


Quit with the arrogant attitude. I'm not parroting anything. Straw polls mean nothing. I don't know how you can possibly think mainstream Republicans would ever vote for Ron Paul. His anti-war stances bother them, because they want to get the US involved in as many conflicts as they can. His anti-drug war stances bother them too. Pretty much everything actually, except for _some_ of his fiscal stances, is in conflict with mainstream conservative Republicans.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Yeah whatever you think of Ron Paul you can't really deny the fact that the majority of Republicans, let alone Americans, aren't going to vote for his policies.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

Ron Paul's stance on evolution and global warming:

"I would say this question is politically motivated. That’s where the problem comes from because I think there’s good science on both sides of the argument. I think for somebody to claim totally that all the science is on the side that we’re in a disaster period of global warming, I think that’s completely false. To totally ignore it would be completely false. For every scientist you come up with and say that “You better worry yourself to death by global warming” others can find a scientist that will refute that just as well.

For instance, in the last 10 years the globe hasn’t been warming and the science is back and forth on this. Quite frankly, I think we spend way too much time on this issue, saying that if you don’t support the thesis that we’re in this period of global warming, somehow we don’t care about the environment. What we should care about is pollution. And the whole problem is that pollution can be better taken care of under a private market system, under private property. Because nobody has a right to pollute their neighbor’s property, their neighbor’s air or their neighbor’s water. And if we had had strict adherence to this we wouldn’t have had so much pollution.

In the industrial revolution, industries and cities and other government agencies have always been given license to pollute. And today probably the biggest polluters are our governments, our Pentagon, for instance, are great polluters. You never see what they’re doing with these burn piles in Afghanistan. All the waste that they’re burning and all the petroleum products they burn at the Pentagon. So there is a lot of concern for this, but it’s not so clean cut as saying “Well, you either agree or disagree with what’s happening on global warming” and I think that there is too much demagoguing on both sides of that issue.

With regard to evolution, I mean… I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on this, especially in politics. “Do you believe in evolution or don’t you believe in evolution? Yes or no? And then we’ll decide whether you should be President or not.”

You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it’s sort of irrelevant, that because we don’t know the exact details and we don’t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it’s a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.

The idea that if you don’t believe in evolution means that you don’t believe in a creator is total nonsense. So I think this once again is overly played and we spend too much time on it. And besides, if you’re in politics it shouldn’t be a bother. This is something maybe not dealing with science as much with your own spiritual life, your personal beliefs. The important thing is that you have a political system where you can debate this and make a decision and government rule shouldn’t be based on this. If you have governments basing their rules on this, then it becomes very important. But in a libertarian society these beliefs aren’t nearly as critical.

When you have government schools it becomes important. “Are you fair in teaching that the earth could have been created by a creator or it came out of a pop, out of nowhere?” In a personal world, we don’t have government dictating and ruling all these things; it’s not very important. So the problem is the political environment that makes these issues so important in deciding what one believes in."


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Shahada said:


> Yeah whatever you think of Ron Paul you can't really deny the fact that the majority of Republicans, let alone Americans, aren't going to vote for his policies.


alright, so then let's accept the comfortable status quo, right?

I'm a little too drunk to adress the rest of your points as it stands...



freeeekyyy said:


> Quit with the arrogant attitude. I'm not parroting anything. Straw polls mean nothing. I don't know how you can possibly think mainstream Republicans would ever vote for Ron Paul. His anti-war stances bother them, because they want to get the US involved in as many conflicts as they can. His anti-drug war stances bother them too. Pretty much everything actually, except for _some_ of his fiscal stances, is in conflict with mainstream conservative Republicans.


let me put it to you this way, if anything you say in this post bears any importance, can't I say: how could you think a black president could ever be elected? this question bears about much merit or coherency as yours... you're making a mistake of thinking the 'mainstream republicans' are more important or even numerous as to outweigh people's opinions on how the country's welfare > partisan politics?..


----------



## freeeekyyy (Feb 16, 2010)

Cover3 said:


> alright, so then let's accept the comfortable status quo, right?
> 
> I'm a little too drunk to adress the rest of your points as it stands...


I certainly don't want the status quo. I like Ron Paul, and will most likely vote for him in the primaries. But my vote is only a drop in the bucket. I'm very much willing to bet that the Republican nominee will be Mitt Romney. I think Ron Paul would make a great president, but what I want doesn't really much matter.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

freeeekyyy said:


> I certainly don't want the status quo. I like Ron Paul, and will most likely vote for him in the primaries. But my vote is only a drop in the bucket. I'm very much willing to bet that the Republican nominee will be Mitt Romney. I think Ron Paul would make a great president, but what I want doesn't really much matter.



if you think RP is anymore viable to vote for than the other status quo candidate, why all the pessimism, I don't see how a Romney vs Obama is profitable for anyone, I mean, whether what I want to matters or not, just because X candidate who's willing to break the status quo on important issues doesn't stand much chances to win it all doesn't change my opinion or position at all, in fact, any other duel than Ron Paul vs Obama will be regarded the same way as a obama vs mccain would be, and then obama will probably get the re-election again, just like bush did, but hey you can always comfort yourself in the fact that abortions will still be practiced..


----------



## MachinegunDojo (Dec 27, 2009)

I _generally _see Ron Paul as someone who doesn't put his personal opinions into federal law. For example, he doesn't like drugs... but he doesn't want them enforced on the federal level but rather let the state and local levels handle their own shit based on their own laws and beliefs(I fucking love the idea and not because of _drugs_). With that said I could care less about abortion laws, but if I had to say if I am on one side it'd probably be pro-life with exceptions but it's a tough topic to debate even in my own head as it's a fucked up subject.

But I am curious on his stance on if he will enforce a federal level abortion laws if he is pro-life as it does seem to be. This would seem to be a bit hypocritical if it is the case.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Cover3 said:


> alright, so then let's accept the comfortable status quo, right?
> 
> I'm a little too drunk to adress the rest of your points as it stands...


Of course not, I'm just saying that voting for Ron Paul (or voting for anyone really) is not an effective way to change the status quo, and even if you're not interested in changing the status quo and just want to vote for Ron Paul, there's little chance he will win in either the primary or the general election. 



Cover3 said:


> but hey you can always comfort yourself in the fact that abortions will still be practiced..


Considering myself and other people I know would have our lives royally fucked if abortion was not legal, yeah, I think I will be comforted by that. I'm not going to support Obama or anyone else on just that one issue but I'm certainly not going to support anyone who would deny a woman's right to choose.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Shahada said:


> Of course not, I'm just saying that voting for Ron Paul (or voting for anyone really) is not an effective way to change the status quo, and even if you're not interested in changing the status quo and just want to vote for Ron Paul, there's little chance he will win in either the primary or the general election.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering myself and other people I know would have our lives royally fucked if abortion was not legal, yeah, I think I will be comforted by that. I'm not going to support Obama or anyone else on just that one issue but I'm certainly not going to support anyone who would deny a woman's right to choose.


Yeah, forgive my little arrogant posting style, as indicated in the post I was pretty intoxicated.


I looked up on the sanctity of life act and here are a few things I want to summarize

- I don't believe Paul is being hypocritical about abortion, it's just something he believes in strongly, whether is position is just wrong, right or sensible with certain exceptions is a matter of opinions, and he has expressed his beliefs about this pretty clearly in nearly every interview he's been asked.

-I am not RP's cheerleader, I don't agree on him on a few things, and ultimately, yeah, outlawing abortions totally could prove problematic for some people, but realistically, I don't believe anything of that nature would ever successfully be implemented, remember president's personal views needn't be replicated to a tee on their population, unless one's a dictator, in which case RP isn't a threat in that regard.

-I do get that you don't believe anything can be changed/improved through the election system, and probably anything short of a revolutionary socialist candidate running will not excite you, but in reality, I stand about as much chance to die by a misfired Chinese ICBM than that happening, so whenever there's a politician that stands for his principles, and speaks out against corruption, wars(we're talking about people getting murdered on the daily), and economical discrimination, AND add to that the fact that the mainstream machine does not give him credit for any of these things, I feel compelled to at least point him out to people so they can see for themselves how there's more to democracy than choosing the more flashy rhetoric.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

It's okay dude, I know you're not generally a douche so it's all good. I can be much more of a dick than that sometimes  Just to go down the line and respond:

-The hypocrisy I'm speaking of comes from a spoken commitment to state's rights on such issues but, when he has the opportunity, seeking to legislate anti-choice laws on a national level. I understand Paul feels strongly about this issue obviously, but he should be more honest in my opinion and say outright that on some laws we need federal oversight. Obviously I disagree with him on what those laws would be, but it's clear he agrees with that statement on principle, at least in the case of abortion.

-Yeah I know you disagree with Paul on some things and you've said so, I'm not saying you agree with him on everything. You do make a good point that Paul isn't going to be able to just ban abortion overnight, same goes for his other more radical ideas, including the ones I agree with (anti-imperialist policy). I can understand a strategic vote from an astute political observer who knows that something they disagree with just will not pass, but abortion is one of the more tenuous ones and not one I'd want to risk. So while I can't disregard the abortion thing with Paul, I do see your point here.

-I know I talk a lot about how elections are useless but honestly I probably go a bit too far with that sometimes. For example, while they're not socialists, if someone from the left like Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders (who is sometimes called a socialist but is really more of a social democrat) tried to primary Obama I would definitely get off my ass and vote for them. If they successfully primaried Obama or even became President, it obviously would not be the revolutionary change I would prefer, but the country would be moved in a leftward direction, left-wing discourse would be more open, and people would be more open to leftist and socialist thought in general. Not to mention their policies would likely greatly benefit many Americans. My problem mostly lies with people who want a big change in the status quo and see elections and voting as the only way to do so and an endpoint, people who have the logic of "if we just elect the right person everything will work fine." That's definitely not true. That being said, if you do support Paul or even just libertarian ideology, I do think it is effective to vote for him in Republican primaries. In fact I'd encourage Paul supporters to do so, if only to send the message that there is a substantial number of people, even within the GOP, who are opposed to US military adventurism. I don't have a problem with you or anyone else promoting Paul, in fact it may be a good thing since he tackles one of the big untouchable issues in American politics today (imperialism) and like you said it does a lot to get people to think outside the status quo. Or, to put it another way, it's a lot easier for me to radicalize a Ron Paul supporter than a milquetoast Democrat


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Shahada said:


> I know I talk a lot about how elections are useless but honestly I probably go a bit too far with that sometimes. For example, while they're not socialists, if someone from the left like Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders (who is sometimes called a socialist but is really more of a social democrat) tried to primary Obama I would definitely get off my ass and vote for them. If they successfully primaried Obama or even became President, it obviously would not be the revolutionary change I would prefer, but the country would be moved in a leftward direction, left-wing discourse would be more open, and people would be more open to leftist and socialist thought in general. Not to mention their policies would likely greatly benefit many Americans. My problem mostly lies with people who want a big change in the status quo and see elections and voting as the only way to do so and an endpoint, people who have the logic of "if we just elect the right person everything will work fine." That's definitely not true.


I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it sounds like you favor some sort of socialist revolution over change through the representative process. Is that right? 

If that's the case, you do realize that it would be the bloodiest thing this country has seen since the Civil War?


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Shahada said:


> The hypocrisy I'm speaking of comes from a spoken commitment to state's rights on such issues but, when he has the opportunity, seeking to legislate anti-choice laws on a national level. I understand Paul feels strongly about this issue obviously, but he should be more honest in my opinion and say outright that on some laws we need federal oversight. Obviously I disagree with him on what those laws would be, but it's clear he agrees with that statement on principle, at least in the case of abortion.


If I could interpose something: I'm not sure what exactly Paul has done to advocate a federally-sanctioned ban on abortion (I'm not disputing that; I was just under a different impression), but if he has, I don't think there is anything inconsistent about it. He is quite candid about the role of government, and it includes protecting individuals from aggression. So...if you believe that an unborn fetus is an individual, then a federal ban on abortion is a sensible corollary.


----------



## Coppertony (Jun 22, 2011)

JayDubs said:


> I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it sounds like you favor some sort of socialist revolution over change through the representative process. Is that right?
> 
> If that's the case, you do realize that it would be the bloodiest thing this country has seen since the Civil War?


Not necessarily. I don't really have faith in the representative democratic process to make significant social change and/or progress either; I just prefer grassroots community organization and (social or for-profit) entrepreneurship for that. If people could stop delegating their socio-political responsibility to their representatives, they could get a lot more done with their own hands and minds. 

Notice that this is hardly antagonistic to the status quo. Instead, we can work on credible change, _within_ the system, while working to transcend what we have now. For example, in many cases the Postal Service wasn't hurt or rendered obsolete via law or court, but rather by the independent and non-antagonistic development of the Internet and e-mail. Of course, that had its own roots in DARPA, but that's another story.


----------



## Pelao (Apr 24, 2011)

Disclaimer: Intoxicated
I personally find it silly to say that someone's worthiness comes from the collective sum of their beliefs. In the grand scheme of things, do Ron Paul's views become negated because he believes a certain way about an issue? I would think not. His voting record shows no signs of "flip-flopping," and he believes in individual liberties being honored by the state governments. If the majority of a state believes something, it seems sensible that one in discordance would want to move to another state. It seems funny how the most compelling argument against Ron Paul is his stance on abortion, yet he wants it to be a matter left to the states. Collectively, 50 states hold more power over a single issue that a single person. By letting the states decide, it is no longer 1 vs. 300+ million people, but 50 vs. 300+ million people. That distribution of power can never be seen as a bad thing, if I am not mistaken.

The worst the Ron Paul can do is no worse than the worst that Obama can do, or any other GOP candidate for that matter. However, his views tend to show that in a best case scenario, he would challenge the status quo for the better in a way that no other candidate can. If at worst there is no difference and at best we are talking about a fascist state vs. a true republic, how could one NOT say no? For the first time in our lives, we have the power to decide what our personal liberties are going to be. Does it not seem sensible to pick the one candidate who IN THE BIG PICTURE provides the most freedom?

To those people that think you vote will be (gasp) wasted by voting on Dr. Paul, then the spirit of democracy is lost. "He won't win so there's no point in voting for him" only exaggerates the problem. Should the public opinion really be that much of an influence on who you vote for? "I would've voted for my best friend for prom king, but i decided not to because he wasn't going to win anyways." It could just happen that your voted has more power than you might think. 

I'll be back when I wake up not drunk, and, as always, am more than happy to challenge views, and more importantly, be challenged. I DARE you to show how Ron Paul could provide a more negative influence than any other candidate.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

JayDubs said:


> I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it sounds like you favor some sort of socialist revolution over change through the representative process. Is that right?
> 
> If that's the case, you do realize that it would be the bloodiest thing this country has seen since the Civil War?


Yes that's correct. It only need be bloody if those in power use violence to resist the rightful authority of the people. I see any revolution such a lesser evil against the perpetuation of the status quo, which causes suffering and death for millions in this country as well as abroad. 



Azrael said:


> If I could interpose something: I'm not sure what exactly Paul has done to advocate a federally-sanctioned ban on abortion (I'm not disputing that; I was just under a different impression), but if he has, I don't think there is anything inconsistent about it. He is quite candid about the role of government, and it includes protecting individuals from aggression. So...if you believe that an unborn fetus is an individual, then a federal ban on abortion is a sensible corollary.


Well if you look at one of my previous posts what I was referring to was his introduction of a bill to define life as beginning at conception according to federal law. I do see your point here though about it not being as much an inconsistency for Paul personally. I do think it creates an image problem for his campaign though when he favors federal legislation on one of the most contentious social issues in the country rather than deferring to the states like he does with most others, on that level it's going to make "state's rights" rhetoric ring hollow for many and they are going to look at Paul's rhetoric the same way many look at mainstream GOP rhetoric on the matter: State's rights for some things, but not for others. I think this problem is only compounded when you consider who makes up Paul's base (mostly young, secular libertarian types) and the roots of Paul's pro-life positions (evangelical Christianity). It would look a lot better for him if he took a "while I personally am pro-life, this is a contentious issue that should be decided by the states" type line.



Pelao said:


> I personally find it silly to say that someone's worthiness comes from the collective sum of their beliefs. In the grand scheme of things, do Ron Paul's views become negated because he believes a certain way about an issue? I would think not. His voting record shows no signs of "flip-flopping," and he believes in individual liberties being honored by the state governments. If the majority of a state believes something, it seems sensible that one in discordance would want to move to another state. *It seems funny how the most compelling argument against Ron Paul is his stance on abortion, yet he wants it to be a matter left to the states.* Collectively, 50 states hold more power over a single issue that a single person. By letting the states decide, it is no longer 1 vs. 300+ million people, but 50 vs. 300+ million people. That distribution of power can never be seen as a bad thing, if I am not mistaken.


You should read the thread better. Paul has introduced legislation to define life as starting at conception as a federal law, which would effectively outlaw abortion in the entire country. H.R.1096: Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress This shows that Paul either does not want abortion to be a matter left to the states or that he is incredibly ignorant about how federal laws work, and given the fact that he's been a legislator for a couple decades I'm betting it's not the latter.


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Shahada said:


> Yes that's correct. It only need be bloody if those in power use violence to resist the rightful authority of the people. I see any revolution such a lesser evil against the perpetuation of the status quo, which causes suffering and death for millions in this country as well as abroad.


Who exactly do you define as "those in power" and who are "the people?" I'm not exactly wielding great wealth or political influence at the moment, and I can tell you that the only way I would accept a true socialist government is if it was established through the legislative process. I'm fairly certain most Americans in this day and age agree with me. 

So keep in mind, any "socialist revolution" wouldn't have to just deal with government troops. It would have to also deal with the very large amount of armed citizens that don't agree with either its method or its goals.

If you can't win in elections, it means you DON'T have the support of the people. And I'm not willing to hand over my rights because some group (socialists or otherwise) couldn't win in the polls. The way I see it, it would be me using my "rightful authority" to resist an unelected socialist coup attempt. So you can dismiss any possibility of a peaceful seizure of power, I'll tell you that right now. The same goes to any theocrats, autocrats, communists, secessionists, racial supremacists, or whatever else out there. Use elections to push your agenda, or get ready for a fight, and not just with government troops.


----------



## Peripheral (Jan 8, 2011)

I'm definitely voting for him, and he can most certainly win, if there wasn't a concerted effort by the mainstream media
to ignore him and demonize him when they do give him any attention. I think this is backfiring on them anyway, since the best way
to keep him from getting elected is to ignore him completely, which they cannot do anymore since they can keep him out of the debates and he's doing great at those.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

JayDubs said:


> Who exactly do you define as "those in power" and who are "the people?" I'm not exactly wielding great wealth or political influence at the moment, and I can tell you that the only way I would accept a true socialist government is if it was established through the legislative process. I'm fairly certain most Americans in this day and age agree with me.
> 
> So keep in mind, any "socialist revolution" wouldn't have to just deal with government troops. It would have to also deal with the very large amount of armed citizens that don't agree with either its method or its goals.
> 
> If you can't win in elections, it means you DON'T have the support of the people. And I'm not willing to hand over my rights because some group (socialists or otherwise) couldn't win in the polls. The way I see it, it would be me using my "rightful authority" to resist an unelected socialist coup attempt. So you can dismiss any possibility of a peaceful seizure of power, I'll tell you that right now. The same goes to any theocrats, autocrats, communists, secessionists, racial supremacists, or whatever else out there. Use elections to push your agenda, or get ready for a fight, and not just with government troops.


This is a huge derail so I'm not going to give a fully fleshed out response, but I disagree that winning elections is an indication of the support of the people. Democrats and Republicans are the only two viable parties, yet both parties push policy that the majority of Americans are opposed to (more tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in social programs, various wars and military actions). By your logic this platform has the support of the people simply because it wins elections, even though polls show that most Americans do not support these policies. If a third party candidate ran for president on a populist platform promising to end corporate welfare and expand social programs, he would have no chance of winning because of the way the political system is constructed: third parties are locked out due to first past the post polling and their message cannot compete with the corporate backed mainstream parties. To use elections as a gauge of what people "support" is a fool's errand.

As far as a revolution goes obviously a peaceful revolution is more desirable and I would hope that should things get to such a point that the people are demanding an end to capitalism (and I think we will eventually see this, though perhaps not in our lifetimes) the powers that be would resign peacefully. But if they don't I see no problem using violence in self-defense. I don't expect you or most middle-class Americans to support a socialist revolution right now, if you are middle-class or upper-middle class in the US you may not have a whole lot to gain from it. Before such a thing happens conditions in the US will need to deteriorate rapidly to the point that many middle-class people see their living conditions worsened and your average American is subject to the same horrors of capitalism the undeveloped world is (some already are in poor rural communities or poor inner city ones). You are happy with your rigged elections and corporate-funded illusion of democracy at the moment, but we will see for how long.


----------



## Paragon (Mar 15, 2011)

Shahada said:


> This is a huge derail so I'm not going to give a fully fleshed out response, but I disagree that winning elections is an indication of the support of the people. Democrats and Republicans are the only two viable parties, yet both parties push policy that the majority of Americans are opposed to (more tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in social programs, various wars and military actions). By your logic this platform has the support of the people simply because it wins elections, even though polls show that most Americans do not support these policies. If a third party candidate ran for president on a populist platform promising to end corporate welfare and expand social programs, he would have no chance of winning because of the way the political system is constructed: third parties are locked out due to first past the post polling and their message cannot compete with the corporate backed mainstream parties. To use elections as a gauge of what people "support" is a fool's errand.
> 
> As far as a revolution goes obviously a peaceful revolution is more desirable and I would hope that should things get to such a point that the people are demanding an end to capitalism (and I think we will eventually see this, though perhaps not in our lifetimes) the powers that be would resign peacefully. But if they don't I see no problem using violence in self-defense. I don't expect you or most middle-class Americans to support a socialist revolution right now, if you are middle-class or upper-middle class in the US you may not have a whole lot to gain from it. Before such a thing happens conditions in the US will need to deteriorate rapidly to the point that many middle-class people see their living conditions worsened and your average American is subject to the same horrors of capitalism the undeveloped world is (some already are in poor rural communities or poor inner city ones). You are happy with your rigged elections and corporate-funded illusion of democracy at the moment, but we will see for how long.


Not to mention about a 1/3 of the nation votes at best.


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Shahada said:


> This is a huge derail...


Yes, mostly my fault. This will be my last post on this. Feel free to respond, but I will say no more on this subject after this. 



Shahada said:


> Democrats and Republicans are the only two viable parties, yet both parties push policy that the majority of Americans are opposed to (more tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in social programs, various wars and military actions). By your logic this platform has the support of the people simply because it wins elections, even though polls show that most Americans do not support these policies. If a third party candidate ran for president on a populist platform promising to end corporate welfare and expand social programs, he would have no chance of winning because of the way the political system is constructed: third parties are locked out due to first past the post polling and their message cannot compete with the corporate backed mainstream parties. To use elections as a gauge of what people "support" is a fool's errand.


Political parties have risen and fallen in the past. I don't particularly like the two-part system, but both these parties have a history of significantly changing their platforms based on public opinion. Read up on their history if you don't believe me.

In any case, you are arguing for OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT. You won't reach the level of support to justify that drastic an action without first getting to the point where you can simply win elections, unless the polls are literally rigged (as in they make up the results, which at least right now they do not). 



Shahada said:


> As far as a revolution goes obviously a peaceful revolution is more desirable and I would hope that should things get to such a point that the people are demanding an end to capitalism (and I think we will eventually see this, though perhaps not in our lifetimes) the powers that be would resign peacefully.


Heck, I'll demand an end to capitalism if or when I see a system that consistently performs better. Sorry to disappoint, but socialism isn't it. The socialist experiments have been very hit and miss so far, with most of the success stories coming from ethnically homogenous nations with valuable natural resource supplies (Denmark for instance, some other debatably socialist Scandinavian countries). And when it doesn't work out, things get bad fast (corruption, political arrests, limits to civil rights, economic collapse, etc.). See Venezuela (past decade), North Korea, India (before its economic reforms). 

What we have isn't perfect, but it's pretty good in the overall scheme of things. People forget that sometimes. 



Shahada said:


> I don't expect you or most middle-class Americans to support a socialist revolution right now, if you are middle-class or upper-middle class in the US you may not have a whole lot to gain from it. Before such a thing happens conditions in the US will need to deteriorate rapidly to the point that many middle-class people see their living conditions worsened and your average American is subject to the same horrors of capitalism the undeveloped world is (some already are in poor rural communities or poor inner city ones).


You're right on all counts. Capitalism (obviously not pure capitalism in the US) does pretty well by me and most Americans. I don't really care if capitalism doesn't work for other countries. The question is, what do I and most other Americans have to gain by switching from a system that works pretty well here to another system that may or may not work here? It's a bad gamble unless the other system has offers a high probability of significantly better quality of life, and socialism doesn't at this point in time. 



Shahada said:


> You are happy with your rigged elections and corporate-funded illusion of democracy at the moment, but we will see for how long.


It's not rigged, it is corporate-funded. That may be a problem, but not big enough of a problem to throw out the whole system because a revolution might (but probably won't) result in something better. 

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. Back on topic, Ron Paul is getting my vote in 2012 whether or not he's the Republican nominee.


----------



## Pelao (Apr 24, 2011)

Shahada said:


> You should read the thread better. Paul has introduced legislation to define life as starting at conception as a federal law, which would effectively outlaw abortion in the entire country. H.R.1096: Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress This shows that Paul either does not want abortion to be a matter left to the states or that he is incredibly ignorant about how federal laws work, and given the fact that he's been a legislator for a couple decades I'm betting it's not the latter.


I stand corrected. I do hope that more was gotten out of that post than a mistake  Abortions aren't necessarily the "root of evil" in the world, as much as the Fed and bureaucracy may make it seem like.


----------



## Pelao (Apr 24, 2011)

@JayDubs:

Do you feel that there is only a choice between capitalism and socialism and that neither can coexist with the other?

I would say the problems we face today are more slanted towards corporatism rather than capitalism.

Capitalism is vital for a strong free market, as it encourages competitiveness.

The idea that corporations are people, and that they receive welfare along with legal protection and tax breaks is NOT beneficial to the common person (NATURAL person, not CORPORATE ).


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Pelao said:


> @_JayDubs_ :
> 
> Do you feel that there is only a choice between capitalism and socialism and that neither can coexist with the other?
> 
> ...


No, there are blends of capitalism and socialism, such as exists in most western democracies today. And I'm not a supporter of pure capitalism anyway (I like public roads, for instance). I probably wouldn't want the government shrunk as much as Ron Paul does, but the president does not make those kinds of decisions on his own. I feel he would be a good counterweight to the current Republicans and Democrats (both of whom are big government, just on different issues). 

As far as corporations, I have a problem with the extent of corporate welfare going on today. I don't really understand why we spend so much money subsidizing large, profitable businesses. And if they're not profitable, maybe they should just go under. 

In regards to corporations having rights, I think they do need to be protected to the extent that those protections are necessary to protect stockholders. For instance, I think the government should not be allowed to seize corporate property without just compensation, because this would be de facto seizing the property of private individuals even if the government didn't take the actual thing those individuals own (stock shares). 

Corporate "free speech" presents a closer question. On the one hand, there is the very real concern that special interests have outsize influence on politicians by (directly or indirectly) contributing to their campaigns. On the other hand, these corporations (often unions, trade groups, special interest lobbies, etc.) do act to represent the interests of the individuals who own/contribute to them. Are we saying that individuals are not allowed to pool their resources to present a message to the public? At the end of the day, I am unsure as to how to best balance the free speech and undue political influence issues. Until I get the chance to read and think more on the subject, I default to supporting free speech, because I always default to allowing greater freedom when I am uninformed on an issue.


----------



## Souljorn (Dec 28, 2010)

@Pelao ron Paul has great ideas and absurd ideas. I think privatization of all of the federal gov't is unachievable until we address some of the more pressing issues such as the disparity between the classes, high hourly works and low minimum wage. Yes I think 8 hours a day for 5 days a week is too much and $8 an hour is too little. I like his stance on drugs but just because some people like heroin I don't think they should be sold anywhere but exclusively at places that open from midnight to 5 A.M. lol. I enjoy the idea of self determinism in state government instead of following the rules of the federal government but I really think some southern states would go overboard, i can see states like missouri and alabama having very Nazi likes law passed as in no black people or mexicans allowed in Alabama anymore. I do feel like Ron Paul is the best candidate but he'll never have a shot, the corporate elite spend a lot of money for too many years to allow someone as ron paul to run as a republican candidate, their polished jewel, so he'll only have a shot if he runs as either a member of the libertarian party or as an independent.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Pelao said:


> Wanted to see what the rationals think of Ron Paul, as well as provided a medium for questions and myths to be addressed.
> 
> I'm just starting "End the Fed," and I have previously read "The Revolution: A Manifesto." Both are amazing reads, and go very highly recommended.
> 
> ...


What you described as "republican" is actually libertarian birthed out of Ayn Rand's (Philosopher) work over complete individual freedom driven by the rational egoism rather than reason; they are not even remotely the same. The real meaning of a republican is someone who believes to have constituents decide on your rights and freedom for you whereas a democrat is for the people themselves to decide for the body known as the US Government on 50/50 vote chances. A republican today will say its the government fucking things up by "treading on me" and a democrat thinks government is the answer to all our problems. 

Also read up on your civics and what each branch of government is responsible for/has the power to do. The president can only suggest to congress what to do and sign laws passed by a vote, other than that, Congress is the starting point and machine behind any policy being made in America that deals with that "Change" you want. Wait it out I say for a democratic congress and a democratic white house for there to be any change, for now it's just a pile of gridlock hence why you feel hopeless in seeing the "change" that was promised.

With this being said, any promise a presidential hopeful makes is like a prayer to congress and the supreme court to follow his bidding, shit chance in my opinion, so don't buy the bull please; its annoying.

And like all theories, might as well test communism on the US if you're going to test libertarianism.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> And of course you have to look at the cost. Not only in terms of long term relationships, but also in dollars. It is way too expensive to maintain. Both parties want to spend tons of money, they just have an either/or mindset. Either we must spend loads of money policing the world and expanding our empire OR we must create a massive welfare state and spend loads of money at home. Can't we do neither?


But it all comes back to arrogance. We can't afford it, but we feel entitled to it. Where other countries do the same thing to a lesser extent due to necessity, we do it because we feel entitled for the entire world to bow down to us. It permeates throughout our entire nation's existence. It's all about "me" for the United States, and damn the rest. That is our problem. That is the fundamental flaw with our country. We can bleat all we want about American generosity, but that is not our primary mode of existence. On an individual and group level, it is always about "me". Debating about politicians, and who is best for the job is irrelevant because politicians aren't the fundamental problem. Nobody is going to vote a person into office that won't obey. The populous of both sides have one common caveat to their opinions of how to fix the problem: "Don't take away my comfort." That puts us between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

mkeath said:


> But it all comes back to arrogance. We can't afford it, but we feel entitled to it. Where other countries do the same thing to a lesser extent due to necessity, we do it because we feel entitled for the entire world to bow down to us. It permeates throughout our entire nation's existence. It's all about "me" for the United States, and damn the rest. That is our problem. That is the fundamental flaw with our country. We can bleat all we want about American generosity, but that is not our primary mode of existence. On an individual and group level, it is always about "me". Debating about politicians, and who is best for the job is irrelevant because politicians aren't the fundamental problem. Nobody is going to vote a person into office that won't obey. The populous of both sides have one common caveat to their opinions of how to fix the problem: "Don't take away my comfort." That puts us between a rock and a hard place.


Agreed completely. Humans have evolved in a lot of ways that aren't good for modern society. One of those things, which happens with politics and entire nations, is collectivism. From racism, to nationalism, to religion, to the MBTI scores :laughing:, it is just a bunch of people that want to be a part of a group dynamic that consists of "us vs them." This creates unhealthy stereotypes and a superior attitude in many ways. It may have helped us survive in the tribal days, but now it is very detrimental to our well being. Unfortunately, evolution takes a very long time so I don't see this basic problem leaving us anytime soon (even if we acknowledged it and actively fought against it). And unlike the more liberal types, I'm not under the naive impression that we are somehow "above and beyond" evolution. I see people as simple animals. While we may all point the finger at the Nazis for committing the Holocaust, and we may point our fingers at the country that currently (or previously) had the most power as being corrupt, little do people realize that if they were in that exact same position they would most likely do the exact same thing. But of course this makes people uncomfortable to think about. So instead we smugly pretend that we are superior, not realizing that that is exactly the problem in the first place! :laughing:


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> And of course you have to look at the cost. Not only in terms of long term relationships, but also in dollars. It is way too expensive to maintain. Both parties want to spend tons of money, they just have an either/or mindset. Either we must spend loads of money policing the world and expanding our empire OR we must create a massive welfare state and spend loads of money at home. Can't we do neither?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a straw man is? First, you compared the GOP to cowboys wanting to bring back the wild west. Then you say that the GOP wants no regulation at all. Sure, there are a handful of old school republicans/libertarians (like myself) that want no regulation, but the republican party as a whole loves regulation as much as the democrats. They just argue over what "needs" to be regulated. Sure George W. Bush ran on the platform of less regulation back in 2000, but he didn't keep his promise. In fact, some of the biggest increases in regulation took place under his watch. Then you say that they want to bring back lynching and slave labor, I don't recall seeing that listed as a GOP goal. And then you say that you would be free to do whatever you wanted. On the contrary, most republicans (The GOP), want a lot of control over your life. Just like the democrats. The only difference is what type of control they want. Democrats want a nanny state, the neo-con republican (aka "The Typical Republican) wants a combination of a theocracy and a military empire. Even the libertarian types like myself don't want people to do "whatever they want." We want people to do whatever they want, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HURT ANYBODY ELSE. As in, my right to swing my arms around ends where your face begins. :wink: As for the police and fire departments, we already have loads of volunteer fire departments and some pay fire departments. And I don't think anybody except the most hardcore anarchist, wants to get rid of the police.


You have a lot of faith in humanity if you truly believe that, with regulation it lessens the need to sue for tort claims. Texas as we speak went up in flames due to not enough funding for firefighters.


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> So yes, I'd say not only is your argument a straw man fallacy, it is actually a perfect textbook example of one.


My apologies in labeling the whole GOP, meant Ron Paul’s ideologies.




Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Source please. Also, if you actually have a source, feel free to explain why it is caused by a lack of regulation. Because I would make the argument that nearly every problem in medicine, particularly with insurance, is caused by too much government rather than not enough.


I’d love to but it would suck to have it come back to me at work, cases I was involved in, etc. after already been harassed before by those very same quacks.
When you get your license for practicing dentistry you have no regulations in place to keep tabs on those doctors to investigate if they are doing harm. One practice killed the patient due to negligence by the doctor (gave him too much anesthetic), they were payed off by the physician not to go to court over what happened and threatened them in the process. Another was a woman who suffered seizures from improper dental work on her teeth both cases regulation by keeping checks and balances towards the honesty and integrity of the doctors that do terrible work is a necessary force that is negated in Texas. I have been there, I have testified and the judicial system failed these patients just because he had a license to practice and no one could tell otherwise if they were screwing around. If investigations were prompted about these individuals, they could have the power of the US government to shut down these quacks indefinitely and not another soul can suffer, and this nonsense could of been avoided.



Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Are you sure this happened in Texas, and not Fantasyland? Sure, I'm not a Texas Law expert, but I'm pretty sure that if somebody causes you harm, regardless of the type, you have the right to sue them. Particularly when it is medical negligence.


And people do, once they win or lose a dentist can still practice oddly enough and screw up more patients from the lack of regulation in licensing. Right after he is taken to court and labeled incompetent, he can go right back and get his license again. If the lawsuit costs you 45k and you make 150k on the patient, in retrospect you made a profit at the expense of their suffering and because of lack of regulation, you are not required to tell other patients nor the Better Business Bureau of your wrong doing.



Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> I don't know enough about the beef industry to comment on specifics, but I'm pretty sure if they weren't regulated and people could sue them for wrongful death, they would probably try pretty hard to keep people from dying.


Yeah sure victims get paid for their suffering, but it would be nice to not have any suffering conducted in the first place. How many times do you see products pulled from the shelves because of harmful problems they possess? Who do you think makes them do that?


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> You don't seem to realize that the people that want regulations the most aren't the do-gooders like yourself, but the people that would be regulated. Regulations take the responsibility out of the hands of those being regulated and give it to the bureaucrats. Go ask Bernie Madoff how regulations work. His industry was HIGHLY regulated.


and he is sentenced to prison at the moment, on top of that the money he stole actually was given back to a large portion of the people he screwed over because of the government having the power to do so.


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> When it comes to the pharmaceutical companies, there are few things you don't seem to realize. First, people already die, despite the heavy regulations. Second, these companies make a huge profit thanks to the regulations, while negating their expenses and making them less liable. Let's do a side by side comparison.
> 
> RPC = (Regulated Pharmaceutical company)
> NRPC = (Non-Regulated Pharmaceutical company)
> ...


The citizen can still sue the company after having been killed. Now, with nothing in place to police the company, the CEO can just pick up his bootstraps and keep going with more products to kill more people. From that billions of dollars lost, they gain billions more in profit from their revenue. Hell I might as well just sell chlorine in huge jugs and label it as happy juice, who do I care if everyone drops dead that uses it even if its misleading and harmful? if they sue me I get to pay a sum and have nothing bad ever happen to me and still sell the product, another wave of death, as long as I get a profit from revenue minus my legal mishaps, on to more killings with no one there to finally stop me and say, no or change it to oranges instead.


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> I can tell you that if I, or anybody else with any common sense owned a pharmaceutical company, I would LOVE to be regulated. Same with the banks and everybody else that is regulated. They are the ones that push the hardest for the regulations, and not so surprisingly, they are the ones that help write them (to their benefit) and put their own people in charge of the regulating bureaucracies.


So its better to have nothing in place at all to protect your lively hood and well being than something that does just because of a few corrupt cronies? Why wash a dish if it’s going to get dirty anyways right? Is that the philosophy we should use?


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Speaking of killing people, how many people do you think die each year because a new drug came out, but the FDA - who has an incentive NOT to release new drugs, didn't put it on the market or took too long with testing?


Probably a damn good reason they didn't do it. AIDS patients love to go to britain for newer drugs that attack the disease and then complain after serious side effects that are irreversible start to creep up. Just release it haphazardly and if people get killed from using the medicine or permanent side effects, what do I care as a CEO, wasn’t me that it happened to. Gotta have something there to stave off those problems.

Beside all of this, there are some parts of regulation that do hinder business development with silly policies that no longer apply to todays issues and do need an overhaul.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> You have a lot of faith in humanity if you truly believe that, with regulation it lessens the need to sue for tort claims. Texas as we speak went up in flames due to not enough funding for firefighters.


On the contrary, I simply have a better understanding than most people about how regulations work. Most people don't seem to understand applied economics at all. They say "Well that sounds nice" and leave it at that. They don't look at the actual consequences. Same here. While regulations sound nice, they do a ton of harm and no good whatsoever. So that leaves me not supporting them. 

As for the firefighters, a lack of funding has nothing to do with regulation. 

You also prove my point for me. If the responsibility for a drugs safety falls on the regulators, then when I sue the company I'm not going to make nearly as much because technically it wasn't their fault that the drug was bad. Without regulations, they have to take full responsibility for their actions. Hence why they like regulations. It saves them money and keeps them from taking responsibility for their misdeeds. 




Thomas D M Thompson said:


> My apologies in labeling the whole GOP, meant Ron Paul’s ideologies.


Likewise, that doesn't describe Ron Paul's policies at all. As I pointed out.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> I’d love to but it would suck to have it come back to me at work, cases I was involved in, etc. after already been harassed before by those very same quacks.
> When you get your license for practicing dentistry you have no regulations in place to keep tabs on those doctors to investigate if they are doing harm. One practice killed the patient due to negligence by the doctor (gave him too much anesthetic), they were payed off by the physician not to go to court over what happened and threatened them in the process. Another was a woman who suffered seizures from improper dental work on her teeth both cases regulation by keeping checks and balances towards the honesty and integrity of the doctors that do terrible work is a necessary force that is negated in Texas. I have been there, I have testified and the judicial system failed these patients just because he had a license to practice and no one could tell otherwise if they were screwing around. If investigations were prompted about these individuals, they could have the power of the US government to shut down these quacks indefinitely and not another soul can suffer, and this nonsense could of been avoided.


I wouldn't put too much faith in a medical license. Do you know where those come from? The unions (in this case the medical unions), in order to make money for their people, have to take it from somewhere else. They do this by limiting the number of people in their field, through the government, by creating license boards and limiting the education opportunities. This makes it worse for all non-union members. A licensing board is just a union scam, not something actually there to ensure the safety of the general public. Any idiot can get a medical license, and many do. :laughing:

If the person was paid off, I take it you mean they got an out of court settlement? That would count as a lawsuit. Just because the people chose to settle for less doesn't have anything to do with regulation. They could have gone to court if they wanted to. I think you have a very poor understanding of Ron Paul's policies, and libertarianism in general. We aren't anarchists. Well, some of us are, but they are a very small minority. :wink: In order for a capitalist system to work, there has to be courts and police to ensure that fraud can be stopped. Very few capitalists, republicans, libertarians, etc. are anarchists.




Thomas D M Thompson said:


> And people do, once they win or lose a dentist can still practice oddly enough and screw up more patients from the lack of regulation in licensing. Right after he is taken to court and labeled incompetent, he can go right back and get his license again. If the lawsuit costs you 45k and you make 150k on the patient, in retrospect you made a profit at the expense of their suffering and because of lack of regulation, you are not required to tell other patients nor the Better Business Bureau of your wrong doing.


This likewise has little do with regulation. This is more about incompetent judges. Any competent judge would aware more than what the doctor made, plus attorney fees, plus pain and suffering, plus they could award punitive damages. And while I'm not a dentist, I don't know of any dental procedure that results in a $45,000 profit for the dentist, must less a $150,000 profit. As for the licensing board, once again, that is yet another example of government interference to "help us" that is actually designed to help those being "punished" and "watched." Contrary to popular belief, the board exists to make dentists money, not to keep the people safe. This is how virtually all regulation works once you start looking into it. Which is why I'm completely against it. While it SOUNDS nice, it doesn't help anybody except those being regulated, and it is at the expense of everybody else. People say "We want regulation to protect us from businesses!" but once you put that through a "reality translator" what they're actually saying is "We want the businesses to have more power and make more money, at our expense!"



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Yeah sure victims get paid for their suffering, but it would be nice to not have any suffering conducted in the first place. How many times do you see products pulled from the shelves because of harmful problems they possess? Who do you think makes them do that?


Agreed completely. All one has to do is watch an hour of daytime television to see how many dangerous drugs are being recalled, or watch the news to see how many dangerous products are being recalled. From cars to toys. One thing that they all share in common though, is that they are all highly regulated. You continue to make my case for me that regulation clearly isn't helping. :wink:



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> and he is sentenced to prison at the moment, on top of that the money he stole actually was given back to a large portion of the people he screwed over because of the government having the power to do so.


The regulations didn't exist to get the money back, they existed to stop it from being taken or messed with in the first place. Ergo, they didn't work. Likewise, not all of those people got their money back (unless there has been more that I didn't hear about). The banks are another group in general that is highly regulated, which gives them massive influence over the government. Surprise, surprise, they're using it to screw us. As evidenced by their reckless decisions that resulted in the bailouts. And the reality is, with how the system is set up "to protect us" their decisions weren't reckless at all. They made perfect sense. A sane person wouldn't go to Vegas and put their life savings on a random number at a roulette table. But if that person knew the taxpayers would back them up if they lost all their money, they definitely would do it then. Why? Because they have a small chance of making a huge profit, and no chance of losing anything. And that is exactly what the banks did, thanks to government interference. 



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> The citizen can still sue the company after having been killed. Now, with nothing in place to police the company, the CEO can just pick up his bootstraps and keep going with more products to kill more people. From that billions of dollars lost, they gain billions more in profit from their revenue. Hell I might as well just sell chlorine in huge jugs and label it as happy juice, who do I care if everyone drops dead that uses it even if its misleading and harmful? if they sue me I get to pay a sum and have nothing bad ever happen to me and still sell the product, another wave of death, as long as I get a profit from revenue minus my legal mishaps, on to more killings with no one there to finally stop me and say, no or change it to oranges instead.


Once again, any competent judge is going to award the plaintiff WAY more than the defendant's profit. 



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> So its better to have nothing in place at all to protect your lively hood and well being than something that does just because of a few corrupt cronies? Why wash a dish if it’s going to get dirty anyways right? Is that the philosophy we should use?


A few things on this one, first, there wouldn't be "nothing" in place. There would be unbiased courts there and profit. Profit is what makes businesses act appropriately. As I'm sure you'll agree, all they care about is profit. Ergo, they aren't going to do anything to screw with said profit. Putting cyanide out as children's candy would seriously hurt their profit (in fact, it would bankrupt them). Secondly, the options aren't "do nothing and help." The options are take away the regulations which would make them responsible for themselves, or instead continue to regulate them which they clearly want because it obviously helps them at our expense. Yeah, I'll go with remove regulations on that one.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Probably a damn good reason they didn't do it. AIDS patients love to go to britain for newer drugs that attack the disease and then complain after serious side effects that are irreversible start to creep up. Just release it haphazardly and if people get killed from using the medicine or permanent side effects, what do I care as a CEO, wasn’t me that it happened to. Gotta have something there to stave off those problems.


That's the system that we already have. They already are releasing drugs like that. If a drug clearly kills people, why not send it to the FDA for approval? If it gets rejected it costs us nothing, and if it gets through is costs us nothing, we make money, and any lawsuits will be minimal since we aren't responsible for making it safe. Without the regulations, they WOULD be responsible for making it work. If they had to pay to research it, and were fully aware that they would lose billions (and hurt their company name which would make them lose even more) by putting out dangerous drugs, you can bet your ass that they would be a lot less likely to put them out than they are now.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

At this point I will ask for proof and references to credible sources that have any bearing on what you have stated. Some really backward logic or making opposing claims that are not logically sound.


----------



## tooboku (Jun 9, 2010)

mkeath said:


> But it all comes back to arrogance. We can't afford it, but we feel entitled to it. Where other countries do the same thing to a lesser extent due to necessity, we do it because we feel entitled for the entire world to bow down to us. It permeates throughout our entire nation's existence. It's all about "me" for the United States, and damn the rest. That is our problem. That is the fundamental flaw with our country. We can bleat all we want about American generosity, but that is not our primary mode of existence. On an individual and group level, it is always about "me". Debating about politicians, and who is best for the job is irrelevant because politicians aren't the fundamental problem. Nobody is going to vote a person into office that won't obey. The populous of both sides have one common caveat to their opinions of how to fix the problem: "Don't take away my comfort." That puts us between a rock and a hard place.


Pax Americana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> At this point I will ask for proof and references to credible sources that have any bearing on what you have stated. Some really backward logic or making opposing claims that are not logically sound.


That's interesting, now you're doing what I already showed you to be doing. :laughing:

Proof - I first asked you for proof, which you didn't provide. Now you're asking me to prove everything that I say.

Logic - I already pointed out a few of your logical fallacies and now you're accusing me of being illogical and offering no evidence as to how. Likewise you make a lot more fallacies that I didn't point out, like the many times that you try and tie something into regulation that is completely unrelated (ie People are settling out of court therefore we need more regulations). 

Likewise, the "backward logic" complaint is even more amusing, because most economic knowledge is counter-intuitive. If you're looking into a basic primer for how economists think, I'd recommend the book "More Sex is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" I don't agree with all of the assessments, but it is a good introduction to how economic thinking works.

Basically this comes down to you not seeming to understand how regulations work in reality. I would strongly urge you to look into that. Do you know what lobbyists are? Lobbyists are people that influence policy in Washington on behalf of private businesses, usually in a very corrupt manner. Any industry big enough to "need" to be regulated is big enough to hire lobbyists. Loads of people want regulation and it goes without saying that what they want is "good regulation." But that is like saying "I want cancer, but the good kind!" It simply isn't going to happen. To get businesses and politicians to put up "good regulations" would be like asking your four year old son to make up his own bedtime, and then come up with his own punishment for not following his own rules. The economic system we have now, and have had for over a century, is called "corporatism." This is where the corporations control everything, and it is what most people (both left and right) mistakenly speak about when they talk about capitalism.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> That's interesting, now you're doing what I already showed you to be doing. :laughing:
> 
> Proof - I first asked you for proof, which you didn't provide. Now you're asking me to prove everything that I say.


just your main points that's all with real world examples. Like cases of when regulation bankrupted a business vs say a lawsuit?


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Logic - I already pointed out a few of your logical fallacies and now you're accusing me of being illogical and offering no evidence as to how. Likewise you make a lot more fallacies that I didn't point out, like the many times that you try and tie something into regulation that is completely unrelated (ie People are settling out of court therefore we need more regulations).
> 
> Likewise, the "backward logic" complaint is even more amusing, because most economic knowledge is counter-intuitive. If you're looking into a basic primer for how economists think, I'd recommend the book "More Sex is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" I don't agree with all of the assessments, but it is a good introduction to how economic thinking works.


Since you admit it is counter-intuitive it takes real world examples to prove it as otherwise which economists have to do and you have not leaving it illogical to say. I'll go ahead and quote some of the phrases that don't make sense:


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> But if that person knew the taxpayers would back them up if they lost all their money, they definitely would do it then. Why? Because they have a small chance of making a huge profit, and no chance of losing anything. And that is exactly what the banks did, thanks to government interference.


It was the lack of government interference that caused that, obviously the regulations in place were not being enforced
From the FBI itself FBI — Mortgage Fraud


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Once again, any competent judge is going to award the plaintiff WAY more than the defendant's profit.


Ever read of the lady spilling hot coffee in her lap?



Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> The options are take away the regulations which would make them responsible for themselves, or instead continue to regulate them which they clearly want because it obviously helps them at our expense. Yeah, I'll go with remove regulations on that one.


How does it obviously help them? Rules saying no don’t do that or yes you have to do that because it makes you a profit helps business? Explain exactly how you came to that conclusion. 


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Without the regulations, they WOULD be responsible for making it work. If they had to pay to research it, and were fully aware that they would lose billions (and hurt their company name which would make them lose even more) by putting out dangerous drugs, you can bet your ass that they would be a lot less likely to put them out than they are now.


Ah yes, so you mean to tell me they would be more likely to spend more research if they didn’t have a government entity there to see if it really works before it hits the market? Fat chance, as a pharmaceutical company Id want to cut corners wherever I could, especially lengthy research which would delay the launch of my product, and from my own research do you think I would be 100 percent honest about it? Definitely if the government didn’t make me honest. I’d be less likely to want to pull my product off the shelves if an incident occurs and wouldn’t have a care in the world if two lawsuits cost me a fraction of my profit earnings. Judges award the plaintiffs to what they see as the amount of suffering that has occurred for the individual, they don’t give a shit for the profit earnings of a company.


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Basically this comes down to you not seeming to understand how regulations work in reality. I would strongly urge you to look into that. Do you know what lobbyists are? Lobbyists are people that influence policy in Washington on behalf of private businesses, usually in a very corrupt manner. Any industry big enough to "need" to be regulated is big enough to hire lobbyists. Loads of people want regulation and it goes without saying that what they want is "good regulation." But that is like saying "I want cancer, but the good kind!" It simply isn't going to happen. To get businesses and politicians to put up "good regulations" would be like asking your four year old son to make up his own bedtime, and then come up with his own punishment for not following his own rules. The economic system we have now, and have had for over a century, is called "corporatism." This is where the corporations control everything, and it is what most people (both left and right) mistakenly speak about when they talk about capitalism.


How is asking for rules to prevent lawsuits popping up like asking for cancer at all? Of course there are lobbyists that sit there in DC that push and pull our constituents to make policies to their advantage especially to have more leverage in competitive markets (Beer for example). That doesn't mean just say fuck it and have harm occur with a law suit due to a few bad eggs in the bunch.

What Ron Paul wants is no regulation in place, even for the aviation industry (directly from what he said at the debate from South Carolina) which god knows anyone who flies people thousands of miles from the ground NEEDS something in place so that harm doesn't occur or happens very rarely even if a few bad eggs in washington work to make it on their behalf. Another example from my happy juice anecdote, the woman who spilt coffee in her lap from McDonald's and had her skin melt off. It did not bankrupt the company after the lawsuit and they are still in existence. All be it far off for a lobbyist or congressman to have even thought of regulation in place for the temperature that coffee should be served at a reasonable level. 

McDonalds initially said screw you we wont change a thing and wont pay you either which made the initial lawsuit in the millions of dollars, guess what happened at court. The judge knocked it down to thousands of dollars and sent her packing. Thank god that the owner of the company has a moral spine to go ahead and make all the coffee in all the restaurants a lower temperature, as an owner it wasn't his moral responsibility to make that decision he could of very well said forget about it, go about your business. 

If that woman had gone to congress as a lobbyist and asked a mandate to be made for all businesses not only would it save those businesses from hurting/harming people it would end up saving them money even from a litigious viewpoint. What is so hard to understand about this? If a few people are using it to their advantage that does not mean to just throw out any form of regulation all because it has corrupt implications. 
Best logic can be seen in this article on what regulation is exactly: A Necessary Evil

http://schmidsystem.com/government-regulation-a-necessary-evil/


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> just your main points that's all with real world examples. Like cases of when regulation bankrupted a business vs say a lawsuit?


That is my point. Regulations do not bankrupt businesses, regulation and other government interference stops businesses from going bankrupt with things like bailouts. When was the last time you say a major industry go bankrupt? Doesn't happen to often. And when it does, it is only in areas that have become technologically obsolete, like Blockbuster because of NetFlix and the internet, or the milk man industry thanks to modern refrigerators. In the past, there were huge corporations that for one reason or another went bankrupt. Now we're force fed nonsense about them being "too big to fail" and the government uses tax dollars to keep afloat businesses that couldn't survivor on their own.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Since you admit it is counter-intuitive it takes real world examples to prove it as otherwise which economists have to do and you have not leaving it illogical to say. I'll go ahead and quote some of the phrases that don't make sense:


To explain further the quote you asked me about, that was speaking of the banks which were recently bailed out. The banks went under because, thanks to government prodding, they started giving out loans to people that clearly couldn't afford them. Had this worked, they would have made a ton of money. But obviously it didn't, so they lost a ton of money and in comes the government to bail them out. Had there been no government interference in this case, they wouldn't have done something as stupid as give loans to loads of people that clearly couldn't pay them back, and if they did they would go bankrupt for doing so.

Also there are racial and political issues at play here that are irrelevant to the situation (ie the people in this case that clearly couldn't pay the loans back were largely minorities so the government pushed for them to get loans in the name of "fairness.").



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> It was the lack of government interference that caused that, obviously the regulations in place were not being enforced
> From the FBI itself FBI — Mortgage Fraud


Agreed. The regulations are rarely enforced. That is just one of the many problems with regulations. My main reasoning up to this point against regulation is the concept itself is fraudulent, but there are several other reasons that they simply don't work. Among them, a multi-billion dollar company can easily pay off a few civil servants, the bureaucracy over-complicates things to the point where nobody can understand the rules and regulations, not even the bureaucrats (and if you can't understand it you can't enforce it), political corruption, etc.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Ever read of the lady spilling hot coffee in her lap?


Yes. I myself would do away with frivolous lawsuits. What does this have to do with regulation though?




Thomas D M Thompson said:


> How does it obviously help them? Rules saying no don’t do that or yes you have to do that because it makes you a profit helps business? Explain exactly how you came to that conclusion.


That is because the people making the regulations are mainly the people being regulated. It isn't a coincidence that the people who are about to be regulated push for the most regulation. These rules aren't made by good natured politicians trying to protect the public, they are made by other people. And who has the most experience to know what type of regulations need to be made in Industry X? Why that would be people from Industry X. This is why I gave the example with the four year old kid coming up with his own bedtime. More often than not, the regulations are being written by the people being regulated, hence why they want them, they can easily write them to their own benefit.




Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Ah yes, so you mean to tell me they would be more likely to spend more research if they didn’t have a government entity there to see if it really works before it hits the market? Fat chance, as a pharmaceutical company Id want to cut corners wherever I could, especially lengthy research which would delay the launch of my product, and from my own research do you think I would be 100 percent honest about it? Definitely if the government didn’t make me honest. I’d be less likely to want to pull my product off the shelves if an incident occurs and wouldn’t have a care in the world if two lawsuits cost me a fraction of my profit earnings. Judges award the plaintiffs to what they see as the amount of suffering that has occurred for the individual, they don’t give a shit for the profit earnings of a company.


That's only if you take the short-sighed liberal "Companies are all evil approach." I don't think companies are evil, not at all. They are amoral (as in, they are not moral nor are they immoral). All they care about is profit. Profit, profit, profit. They are in business to make money. By cutting corners they hurt their companies reputation, and can cause large lawsuits to be filed against them. Both of which hurt profits. Contrary to what a lot of liberals will tell you, profit is not a dirty word. Profit is what keeps the consumer safe. 

Take peanut butter for example. In your opinion, what is an appropriate number of dead flies for each jar of peanut butter? I would say "None!" as would most people. And if you eat peanut butter, you'll notice that each jar isn't filled with dead bugs, even though the FDA (ie the people supposedly "protecting" us) has a set number of acceptable animal hairs and dead bug parts that can be in each jar of peanut butter (and all other food items for that matter). It isn't the FDA that protects us, but profit. If people started opening up peanut butter jars and seeing the "FDA Approved Number Of Dead Bugs" in each jar, they would stop buying peanut butter, which would hurt the peanut butter industry's profits. It is in their best interest to keep these things out of the peanut butter, because cutting corners will hurt profits.




Thomas D M Thompson said:


> How is asking for rules to prevent lawsuits popping up like asking for cancer at all? Of course there are lobbyists that sit there in DC that push and pull our constituents to make policies to their advantage especially to have more leverage in competitive markets (Beer for example). That doesn't mean just say fuck it and have harm occur with a law suit due to a few bad eggs in the bunch.


What are you talking about rules to prevent lawsuits? Things to make the consumer safe? As I already said, they don't actually keep the consumer safe. Are you talking about frivolous lawsuits like before? I myself am against frivolous lawsuits. 

As for lobbyists, that isn't a "few bad eggs." Every major industry has lobbyist and is actively corrupting our republic and the politicians that supposedly serve us. 



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> What Ron Paul wants is no regulation in place, even for the aviation industry (directly from what he said at the debate from South Carolina) which god knows anyone who flies people thousands of miles from the ground NEEDS something in place so that harm doesn't occur or happens very rarely even if a few bad eggs in washington work to make it on their behalf. Another example from my happy juice anecdote, the woman who spilt coffee in her lap from McDonald's and had her skin melt off. It did not bankrupt the company after the lawsuit and they are still in existence. All be it far off for a lobbyist or congressman to have even thought of regulation in place for the temperature that coffee should be served at a reasonable level.


I too want no regulation in place. And that includes the airlines. Airline regulation is what allowed 9/11 to be so devastating. It was after all the regulators that said "No the pilots can't have guns." Without them, the pilots would have had guns and could have stopped this whole mess. People weren't dying left and right without airline regulations.

As for the coffee, they already do have standards to the best of my knowledge. That was simply a one off accident (unlike some of the other frivolous lawsuits of a similar nature). Accidents happen, with or without regulations. And no, one accident usually won't bankrupt a company. That lady got millions of dollars and no doubt McDonald's looked more into their coffee temperatures because of it. But large scale intentional misdeeds usually will bankrupt a company (like arbitrarily pushing dangerous drugs out like you suggested earlier).



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> McDonalds initially said screw you we wont change a thing and wont pay you either which made the initial lawsuit in the millions of dollars, guess what happened at court. The judge knocked it down to thousands of dollars and sent her packing. Thank god that the owner of the company has a moral spine to go ahead and make all the coffee in all the restaurants a lower temperature, as an owner it wasn't his moral responsibility to make that decision he could of very well said forget about it, go about your business.


That wasn't because the owner was moral, that was because he (them really), like all businesses, will always do what is in their best interest. If people are getting hurt from one of their products, it is in their best interest to stop that from happening. Otherwise they could lose a lot of money or even go bankrupt if things are bad enough.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> If that woman had gone to congress as a lobbyist and asked a mandate to be made for all businesses not only would it save those businesses from hurting/harming people it would end up saving them money even from a litigious viewpoint. What is so hard to understand about this? If a few people are using it to their advantage that does not mean to just throw out any form of regulation all because it has corrupt implications.
> Best logic can be seen in this article on what regulation is exactly: A Necessary Evil


Government Regulation – A Necessary Evil?[/QUOTE]

As I pointed out, it isn't "just some" but "nearly all." Also, your article kind of proves my point for me. From the article.... 

"Rules and regulations carry the weight of law but are not written by lawmakers. Instead, they’re written in large part by bureaucrats who rely on input from “experts” to form the basis of the new standard."

Who do you think these experts are? As I've already pointed out, they are the people from said industry. You're not going to go get some drunk off the street to write regulations for the automobile industry, they wouldn't have the first clue where to start. Instead, you get people from said industry. Do you see now how easily this can be corrupted?

Likewise it goes on to explain what I said earlier (about your one point about rules not being enforced) that bureaucracies over-complicate everything. 

Then what they say is factually untrue, about businesses not wanting regulations. As I pointed out, it is the businesses that push the hardest for regulation. Why do you think the health insurance companies pushed for Obamacare? And why do you think their stock prices went up when it because clear that it would go through? Why? Because it isn't actually socialized medicine, it is a forced monopoly where every citizen in America will be forced to buy private health insurance. 

Lastly it points out what I have been saying all along, that it is in the businesses best interest to do right by the consumer.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> That is my point. Regulations do not bankrupt businesses, regulation and other government interference stops businesses from going bankrupt with things like bailouts.


Great as a bank employee irl I can keep my job, plus one for the citizen


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Also there are racial and political issues at play here that are irrelevant to the situation (ie the people in this case that clearly couldn't pay the loans back were largely minorities so the government pushed for them to get loans in the name of "fairness.").


I am confused, did I mention race?



Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Agreed. The regulations are rarely enforced. That is just one of the many problems with regulations. My main reasoning up to this point against regulation is the concept itself is fraudulent, but there are several other reasons that they simply don't work. Among them, a multi-billion dollar company can easily pay off a few civil servants, the bureaucracy over-complicates things to the point where nobody can understand the rules and regulations, not even the bureaucrats (and if you can't understand it you can't enforce it), political corruption, etc.


As are most laws put in place around the world in every civilization.



Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Yes. I myself would do away with frivolous lawsuits. What does this have to do with regulation though?


Although it can be viewed as a case-in-point for frivolous lawsuits, was just an example of how regulation can come about by a lawsuit and how it can help rather than deter.




Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> That is because the people making the regulations are mainly the people being regulated. It isn't a coincidence that the people who are about to be regulated push for the most regulation. These rules aren't made by good natured politicians trying to protect the public, they are made by other people. And who has the most experience to know what type of regulations need to be made in Industry X? Why that would be people from Industry X. This is why I gave the example with the four year old kid coming up with his own bedtime. More often than not, the regulations are being written by the people being regulated, hence why they want them, they can easily write them to their own benefit.


This is typical of those who use tin-foil-hats too, it’s a conspiracy man! Get real. Show me real sources.





Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> That's only if you take the short-sighed liberal "Companies are all evil approach." I don't think companies are evil, not at all. They are amoral (as in, they are not moral nor are they immoral). All they care about is profit. Profit, profit, profit. They are in business to make money. By cutting corners they hurt their companies reputation, and can cause large lawsuits to be filed against them. Both of which hurt profits. Contrary to what a lot of liberals will tell you, profit is not a dirty word. Profit is what keeps the consumer safe.


And then it’s also a short-sighted view by a business viewpoint that you really are in the best interest of your consumers, not true for all industries and the big ones usually don’t have the customers best interest at heart, only the business. BP for example.


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Take peanut butter for example. In your opinion, what is an appropriate number of dead flies for each jar of peanut butter? I would say "None!" as would most people. And if you eat peanut butter, you'll notice that each jar isn't filled with dead bugs, even though the FDA (ie the people supposedly "protecting" us) has a set number of acceptable animal hairs and dead bug parts that can be in each jar of peanut butter (and all other food items for that matter). It isn't the FDA that protects us, but profit. If people started opening up peanut butter jars and seeing the "FDA Approved Number Of Dead Bugs" in each jar, they would stop buying peanut butter, which would hurt the peanut butter industry's profits. It is in their best interest to keep these things out of the peanut butter, because cutting corners will hurt profits.


Great I’m all for the standards being raised for a company that can produce peanut butter with no flies in it making them the golden standard, thank you FDA for making that possible...



Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> As for lobbyists, that isn't a "few bad eggs." Every major industry has lobbyist and is actively corrupting our republic and the politicians that supposedly serve us.


Again a statement by those who wear tin-foil-hats.



Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> I too want no regulation in place. And that includes the airlines. Airline regulation is what allowed 9/11 to be so devastating. It was after all the regulators that said "No the pilots can't have guns." Without them, the pilots would have had guns and could have stopped this whole mess. People weren't dying left and right without airline regulations.


In the history of aviation plenty have died from aircraft problems that arose from lack of regulation, and it does change depending on the circumstances, as it so happens in real life politics. Lets just have an accidental shooting blow out the air cabin and kill everyone on the aircraft why don’t we.


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> As for the coffee, they already do have standards to the best of my knowledge. That was simply a one off accident (unlike some of the other frivolous lawsuits of a similar nature). Accidents happen, with or without regulations. And no, one accident usually won't bankrupt a company. That lady got millions of dollars and no doubt McDonald's looked more into their coffee temperatures because of it. But large scale intentional misdeeds usually will bankrupt a company (like arbitrarily pushing dangerous drugs out like you suggested earlier).


Not a suggestion, just something that really happens with drug companies who do their own research without a second body making sure they are honest.


Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> Then what they say is factually untrue, about businesses not wanting regulations. As I pointed out, it is the businesses that push the hardest for regulation. Why do you think the health insurance companies pushed for Obamacare? And why do you think their stock prices went up when it because clear that it would go through? Why? Because it isn't actually socialized medicine, it is a forced monopoly where every citizen in America will be forced to buy private health insurance.


And when the people start getting sick, those profits will march way way down as they cannot deny people coverage anymore, thanks to regulation. As an insurance lobbyist that would be the first huge concern on my mind and I would be damn stupid to fight for it. Might seem great in the short term but along the way it’s going to suck to be an insurance company. 
The article gives great logical reasons why companies do not want regulation, what you imply in regards to government is like a person with a tin-foil-hat on not grounded in reality.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Great as a bank employee irl I can keep my job, plus one for the citizen


Yes, and for your bosses who are being rewarded with loads of money for their reckless behavior. Everybody wins. Well, everybody except the taxpayers. Oh, and the small banks that don't have the clout to benefit from reckless policies.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> I am confused, did I mention race?


No you didn't mention race. I was just putting that in there to explain the reason why the government pushed the banks into doing that. As I said, it was irrelevant to the topic. I just figured that I'd pre-emptively answer it in case you wondered why the government wanted that done.




Thomas D M Thompson said:


> As are most laws put in place around the world in every civilization.


Truer words have never been spoken! :laughing:




Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Although it can be viewed as a case-in-point for frivolous lawsuits, was just an example of how regulation can come about by a lawsuit and how it can help rather than deter.


And likewise I showed that the alternative was better because it produces the same result, with no added cost to the taxpayer.





Thomas D M Thompson said:


> This is typical of those who use tin-foil-hats too, it’s a conspiracy man! Get real. Show me real sources.


It would be a conspiracy, if it weren't so clearly true. It is simply a very ugly and corrupt form of self-policing. Unfortunately it is all to common. As for the stocks, here you go...

Health Care Stocks Up After House OKs Obamacare




Thomas D M Thompson said:


> And then it’s also a short-sighted view by a business viewpoint that you really are in the best interest of your consumers, not true for all industries and the big ones usually don’t have the customers best interest at heart, only the business. BP for example.


The businesses don't have the best interests of the consumer in mind. They instead have their own best interest in mind (ie How to make the most profit?). Fortunately for the consumer, the business is dependent on them, and therefore their interests are conjoined. 



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Great I’m all for the standards being raised for a company that can produce peanut butter with no flies in it making them the golden standard, thank you FDA for making that possible...


I think you misread that. As I pointed out, it isn't the FDA that keeps us safe. For all they care, we can have animal hair and dead bugs in our food. It is the profits of the companies that keep us safe.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Again a statement by those who wear tin-foil-hats.


Gee, I wonder why BILLIONS of dollars are being spent each year by people from every major industry on lobbying. Tin-foil hat conspiracy indeed. :wink:



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> In the history of aviation plenty have died from aircraft problems that arose from lack of regulation, and it does change depending on the circumstances, as it so happens in real life politics. Lets just have an accidental shooting blow out the air cabin and kill everyone on the aircraft why don’t we.


Just because somebody died, doesn't mean it was because of a lack of regulation. Airlines are highly regulated and planes still crash, mistakes are still made, etc. As time goes by technology improves which makes flights safer. As I said, it isn't like people were dying left and right before airline regulations. The number of crashes has fluctuated both before and after regulations. Clearly, the regulations aren't doing any good. 

The gun could easily be kept unloaded and/or locked up and/or have a trigger lock, to avoid such an accident. And of course the pilots would be trained on how to properly use it.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Not a suggestion, just something that really happens with drug companies who do their own research without a second body making sure they are honest.


You seem to ignore the fact that I've pointed out time and time again how having said regulators actually causes a perverse incentive for them NOT to act honestly. 



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> I would be damn stupid to fight for it.


Yes, you're absolutely right. You WOULD be damn stupid to fight for it. So that begs the question, "Then why were they fighting for it?" As I point out, it is because Obamacare is in no way, shape, or form, socialized medicine. It is people being forced to buy private insurance. Now, you don't have a choice if you have health insurance or not. You either buy it, or pay a large fine. And since you have to buy it, the insurance companies can now charge whatever they feel like it, they don't have to compete because you are obligated to buy it. Hence why they pushed for it.



Thomas D M Thompson said:


> The article gives great logical reasons why companies do not want regulation, what you imply in regards to government is like a person with a tin-foil-hat on not grounded in reality.


The article made my case for me and mimicked everything that I've been saying, but instead gave a different conclusion. :laughing: Likewise, you can insult me all you want, but that doesn't make you right. :wink:


At any rate, this argument is getting way too long and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you honestly want to learn more about Ron Paul, beyond what the media wants you to think about him, I would recommend his book The Revolution. It is a short read and explains in detail all of his policies and the logic behind them. Whether you agree with him or not doesn't matter, but at least then you'd know a thing or two about him instead of just parroting what the media says to discourage people from voting for him.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

Nice, a wiki article with no references or citations... the first ever link to a source I've seen from you. Did you also read entirely what I said?
...when the people start getting sick, those profits will march way way down as they cannot deny people coverage anymore, thanks to regulation. As an insurance lobbyist that would be the first huge concern on my mind and I would be damn stupid to fight for it. Might seem great in the short term but along the way it’s going to suck to be an insurance company.
And as far as insults go its not you that I'm talking about its those that have that kind of mentality that have the same opinions you do.

The insurance companies already can charge whatever they like and others can charge less than their competitors still, that doesn't change one bit.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

Thomas D M Thompson said:


> Nice, a wiki article with no references or citations... the first ever link to a source I've seen from you. Did you also read entirely what I said?
> ...when the people start getting sick, those profits will march way way down as they cannot deny people coverage anymore, thanks to regulation. As an insurance lobbyist that would be the first huge concern on my mind and I would be damn stupid to fight for it. Might seem great in the short term but along the way it’s going to suck to be an insurance company.
> And as far as insults go its not you that I'm talking about its those that have that kind of mentality that have the same opinions you do.
> 
> The insurance companies already can charge whatever they like and others can charge less than their competitors still, that doesn't change one bit.


Sure they can charge whatever they want, and you don't have to pay it. McDonald's for example can charge $100 for a Bic Mac if they want to, but then what happens? Hardly anybody would buy it. However when people are FORCED to buy it against their will, then the company can charge whatever they like. Also, maybe you should look up Game Theory while you're at it.

And the Wikipedia link was there to define a term (that you didn't seem to think existed). :laughing: The various other links that I listed aren't from Wikipedia. Likewise, you haven't presented ANY proof. The closest you came was listing an opinion source that mimicked my argument but with a different conclusion. 

As far as tin-foil hats go, you mentioned it three times. Also, am I the only one that finds it amusing that somebody that seemingly supports the 9/11 conspiracy is calling me a tin-foil hat types? :laughing:

Like I said though, most of what you say about Ron Paul clearly isn't true. It just what the media says to mock him to keep people from voting for him. If you want to get a good introduction to his policies, check out his book The Revolution.

And with that... I'm done with thread. Have fun here guys! :wink:


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

... I said I believe what now?


----------



## Pelao (Apr 24, 2011)

Niccolo,
Good stuff! :happy: Nice to see somebody that has done their homework and isn't listening to the MSM as if it was the end all be all.

Would like to point out that you mentioned that you don't necessarily agree with RP on gay rights. I'm a bit confused by that, since RP is the most libertarian regarding that matter and you clearly seem to express the ideals of a true libertarian.

RP has made it clear that ALL humans, male or female or in-between, from fetus (his opinion, not mine. I'm just the messenger to those that are pro choice) to death are entitled to all rights of humans. Regarding military homosexuality for instance, he said:


Ron Paul said:


> "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."


He also fully opposes a federal definition of marriage, which is probably what you were referring to about leaving it to the states. But he supports gays' rights, including to marry. If he were to leave it up to the federal government, he would have to go against the very principles which he stands upon. And individual states governments would have to answer to the people directly, or face the wrath of the free market. So really, it seems like that stance is the most logical and most fair stance, as well as the most honorable compared to any of the other candidates.

Keep up the good work spreading the truth! :tongue:


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

Pelao said:


> Niccolo,
> Good stuff! :happy: Nice to see somebody that has done their homework and isn't listening to the MSM as if it was the end all be all.
> 
> Would like to point out that you mentioned that you don't necessarily agree with RP on gay rights. I'm a bit confused by that, since RP is the most libertarian regarding that matter and you clearly seem to express the ideals of a true libertarian.
> ...


You hit the nail on the head on all accounts. I'm well aware of his position on gays in the military, and I agree with it 100%. Though I don't like labels and I therefore refer to myself as an independent, for all intents and purposes I am a libertarian. Which brings me to this problem, the government is in the business of marriage (which I don't think they should be), and they are against gay marriage (which I don't think that should be). Surely you see the inherent contradiction here? On the one hand, I want gays to be allowed to get married. On the other, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage. Because of this, I've came the the most pragmatic view in my opinion which is government support of gay marriage. The reason for this being, the government isn't going to get out of the marriage business anytime soon, if at all.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson (Sep 14, 2011)

to clarify I do agree with the reality of regulation and the bastardization that occurred from those policies. In practice it would be wonderful without corrupted hands causing so much mayhem. Give man a stick and he will learn how to hit you with it before he uses it as a skewer for a roast to help feed the village.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Ron Paul? I think very little of hiim, however, I stand outside of the US so I can't really say too much about him.


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

Pelao said:


> Wanted to see what the rationals think of Ron Paul, as well as provided a medium for questions and myths to be addressed.
> 
> I'm just starting "End the Fed," and I have previously read "The Revolution: A Manifesto." Both are amazing reads, and go very highly recommended.
> 
> ...


Ron Paul...the only decent Presidential candidate since JFK...the only decent Presidential candidate since William McKinley.


----------

