Ron Paul: End Obamacare, Abolish the IRS, Eliminate Support for Big Government

I am well aware that anarchism is not fantasy, it is real and it has been demonstrated time and time again. It is fantasy to believe that at our current state as a civilization, we can leave peacefully and cooperatively under an anarchist system, that is fantasy. Libertariasm, while it may not be complete anarchy, is still unrealistic. Your saying it's very realistic, the fact that you have nothing to point to does not give you good grounds to stand on.

No modern nation has ever gone through a successful period of libertarianism, none. Libertarian cannot be successfully demonstrated because it is simply and unrealistic system to reality. But sure Jean, talk about "theory" as if this offers evidence, reality is what matters to me. Believe me, I want a person Ron Paul to gain power, and I want him to have the opportunity to try and implement his libertarian utopia. It's best you see for yourself because clearly nobody else will convince you.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Gravity did not come into play just because Newton wrote down a mathematical equation describing it, and an individuals unalienable rights didn't come into play because some politician legislated it so.

"Unalienable rights" is a belief, it is a belief that you and I share, to some degree. To compare a belief to a science is silly. We know gravity exists because it just does, Newton only rationalized it for us. As for freedom? Freedom didn't just exist all this time. If freedom was a science then the injustices of the past would not have been committed. Freedom is a concept, a belief, and our definitions of freedom vary. You believe freedom just exists, and tomorrow the Russians may invade and strip that freedom from you. It's a concept, a belief, it is not a science.

It is one thing to argue that this end is best accomplished by big government is opposed to small government, but is another thing entirely to dismiss natural law, and by dismissing Libertarianism as fantasy, this is what you are doing, in order to support big government.

Right, I disagree with libertarianism and I believe in big government. Yep.

Ron Paul needs to come in demonstrate to the rest of us what libertarianism can do. I believe that people need to learn by actions, and what better way than to allow another corporate hack to enter office under the cloak of freedom and liberty.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


“Rights"are not absolute; humans, who are social beings, have obligations that often mitigate their rights, unless they want to become like the Unabomber and live alone in the woods, [hopefully of course not indulging in his kind of activity.]

For example, as soon as a woman has a child, there are things she obligates herself to do by the act of child bearing. Would an absolutionistic libertarian think that that woman doesn’t have to take care of the child?

Doesn’t a business man, who all his life has taken advantage of what the good the society offers to those in his financial strata, inherently obligate himself to the common social good—by way of hiring citizens to assist him in his business—have an obligation to pay a living wage? And if he doesn’t, does the society have the right to intervene and have an interest in the relationship of this business man and his employees? Since the employees welfare, whether they are happy or unhappy, has an effect on the well being of the society.

Of course it does. Therefore rights are not absolute! Rights are mitigated by myriad interested parties sharing obligations towards each other.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


i just do not get people who believe in big government explain the rational.

why? why? the hell would you give your own power away freely to a thing that has been proven time and time again to abuse its authority?

reply to post by neo96


Big government or small government, both can abuse, I doubt the size of the government matters much when it comes to abuse. In that case the size of the army or police force may matter, and rarely do conservatives complain about small army. Granted some libertarians do. But I think we should strive and concentrate on having smart; good, just, and representative government.

reply to post by inforeal


decentralization of power means a smaller governent which means it has less power to abuse and less people it can abuse.

a prettty simple concept imagine a country where the power resides in the people themselves never bowing to the whim of government but putting government into check.

the people is the government telling government what to do and not the government tell the people what to do.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I am well aware that anarchism is not fantasy, it is real and it has been demonstrated time and time again. It is fantasy to believe that at our current state as a civilization, we can leave peacefully and cooperatively under an anarchist system, that is fantasy. Libertariasm, while it may not be complete anarchy, is still unrealistic. Your saying it's very realistic, the fact that you have nothing to point to does not give you good grounds to stand on.

First you disingenuously begin by equating freedom with anarchy, pretending that I and Ron Paul are advocates of anarchy. I have never advocated anarchy, and Ron Paul has certainly never done so. It is a disingenuous move because what you are well aware of is that your position necessarily makes you and advocate of tyranny, but not wanting to wear the black hat of tyranny, you hope to put on a white hat and argue that natural law and the solemn respect for individual rights is anarchy.

Of course, like all advocates of tyranny, you hope to present a benign tyranny by allowing for the fact that "Libertarianism...(is) not complete anarchy", and you hopelessly present yourself as the wise old soul who understands that freedom is "unrealistic", and worse, you engage in the same bad propaganda that has been coming out of the sycophants of tyranny for at least fifty years, as if it doesn't matter how blind your dogma is, it is wiser than the self evident world to those who see.

You claim I have nothing to point to to show that rights are natural, foolishly ignoring my assertion that the right to self defense is natural, and stubbornly pretending that it isn't. You can hide in a cave all day long and only come out at night in order to show the world the sun is not evident, but all you are showing is your own foolishness. You assume there is nothing self evident to point to because you willfully ignore it, but this doesn't change the fact that a rose does not need a Congress of roses in order to derive the right to keep and bear thorns, a porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to derive the right to keep and bear needles and the skunk does not need permission from the state in order to spew its stink. That these creatures have this natural and unalienable right to self defense is without question. You can, of course, question it, but then this ground to stand on is one you are far from.

"Unalienable rights" is a belief, it is a belief that you and I share, to some degree.

Unalienable rights are a natural observable phenomenon and I just demonstrated it so in regards to the right to self defense. Freedom of speech? The newborn infant does not look to the First Amendment to find permission to wail, nor does it seek an audience with a king, nor ask permission from the state in order to wail, the newborn infant instinctively understands this right and exercises it. Infants do not cry because governments allow it too, and the really good governments hold the "belief" that infants should be able to cry.

To compare a belief to a science is silly.

What the hell do you think a hypothesis or theory is? It is always those whose proclivity towards the sciences is clearly lacking who believe that this is unimportant, and they are wise enough even so to make some imagined distinction between laws, declaring some simple, true, universal, and absolute, and others complex, not requiring any falsification in order to exist, exclusive, and arbitrary and capricious.

We know gravity exists because it just does, Newton only rationalized it for us. As for freedom? Freedom didn't just exist all this time.

Freedom has always existed, and what you are attempting to argue is that because tyrants came along and usurped the original political power, and denied or disparaged the rights of individuals this proves that freedom isn't real. I suppose you will try to argue that because we can pluck a rose that it clearly does not have the right to self defense, and because we can shoot a porcupine, clearly it does not have the right to self defense, and because we can render a skunk road kill, clearly the skunk does not have the right to self defense, but what is clear is the denial and disparagement of their right to life.

If freedom was a science then the injustices of the past would not have been committed.

This is akin to saying that if gravity was a science people wouldn't jump off cliffs.

Freedom is a concept, a belief, and our definitions of freedom vary. You believe freedom just exists, and tomorrow the Russians may invade and strip that freedom from you. It's a concept, a belief, it is not a science.

Heidegger states that: "We do not speak language, language speaks us". Language clearly speaks you, and far too many people, but because this is a truism it does not make it truth. The critical thinker is quite capable of speaking language and not allowing language to speak them. Those not skilled in critical thinking will inevitably fall prey to language speaking them. You hope to convince people that because there are bullies out there more than willing to trample upon and deny their rights that this is proof those rights don't really exist. Interestingly you disingenuously present the "Russians" as the threat to freedom, desperately sidestepping the reality that our own government is all ready stripping that freedom.

By your logic, a tree chopped down does not exist. By your logic a person murdered never existed. These were just beliefs held by people, but chopped down trees and murdered people are not science, they are somehow beyond the realm of science.

reply to post by inforeal

“Rights"are not absolute; humans, who are social beings, have obligations that often mitigate their rights, unless they want to become like the Unabomber and live alone in the woods, [hopefully of course not indulging in his kind of activity.]

This is what is known as the fallacious argument: Excluded Middle, which is a false dichotomy, or bifurcation. The assertion that the only way that individuals can have unalienable rights is if they are loners who live in the woods like the "Unabomber", is a false dichotomy. Society will not crumble when individual rights are respected with all the force and weight of law, real law, not legislation.

Rights are actions that - outside of self defense, defense of property, and defense of others, causes no harm. If an action causes no harm, that the person who does this, does it by right. Do you see how simple, true, universal and absolute that is?

Here is another law. All closed systems tend towards entropy. Of course this law is stated through the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but one only need look around and see the self evident entropy of a closed market system, the entropy of closed systems in relation to organizations. While the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is regarding heat systems, it is self evident that closed systems in general fall prey to entropy. Another word for entropy is chaos. So, when you and S.G. and the other sycophants of tyranny attempt to frame the assertion that rights are natural law as being anarchy, you ironically hope to sell anarchy as utter chaos, yet it is the closed systems you advocate that run the greater risk of reaching this chaos.

No matter how you slice it, what both you and S.G. are doing is making arguments as to why you have the right to deny or disparage the rights of others.

I'll do my part, again, to help Dr. Paul. I also fear he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, but I'm sick to death of voting for the lesser of two evils - especially when one is just as bad as the other.

At least he has principles, something both the Repubs and Dems seem to lack, and still believes in the Constitution. If he doesn't win, I may just take my Social Security and retire to a walled ex-pat community in Costa Rica.

Very long post you made there Jean. I did not intend for you to put so much effort but thanks for taking the time anyway. We could spend all day debating Libertarian values, belief or philosophy, however I'm more concerned with actions and the results of these actions. If I wanted to learn about libertarian philosophy, I'd have plenty of resources to go by, thanks.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
First you disingenuously begin by equating freedom with anarchy, pretending that I and Ron Paul are advocates of anarchy.

I believe Libertarianism is close to anarchy, yes. My post was clear.

You claim I have nothing to point to to show that rights are natural, foolishly ignoring my assertion that the right to self defense is natural, and stubbornly pretending that it isn't.

You have this idea that your ideology has some core destiny in this world or is some how "natural" or a "science". It's a belief you hold, it's a theory, it adds absolutely nothing to marketing Ron Paul as a successful president. Liberals, conservatives, communists, they've all done the same thing you are doing right now, they've all marketed their ideologies to promote their candidates. In the end, actions and the results of those actions speak louder than words.

Seriously, good luck in getting Ron Paul to the presidency. This country needs a wake a call because from what I get from members on here, they certainly have not learned a thing from the Reagan, Nixon and Bush administrations. Get Ron Paul into power, let him do his thing, and let us wait for the results following his actions.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Seriously, good luck in getting Ron Paul to the presidency. This country needs a wake a call because from what I get from members on here, they certainly have not learned a thing from the Reagan, Nixon and Bush administrations. Get Ron Paul into power, let him do his thing, and let us wait for the results following his actions.

While I can understand your pessimism, you have to bare in mind something. What makes me dare to have a tenuous hope in Ron Paul, is the fact that he has been espousing the ideals of Liberty as an elected official for near thirty years now, unwavering. Whereas the previous named politicians merely picked up a few libertarian slogans to win over a section of voters - much as one would rent a tuxedo with the intention of banging a bridesmaid while wearing it, only to return it to the store; sullied.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


My example of living in the woods has to do with becoming truly free to have “absolute rights” [a rare occurrence in the real world] because that person is alone and has fewer obligations to others..

You couldn’t find an absolute if you looked for it, so there is no thing as absolute rights.

There are relative rights as there are relative freedoms. Neither are absolute, that’s what I was referring you to

You, Ron Paul and the other libertarians don’t understand that. In the real world rights relative

reply to post by Southern Guardian

You have this idea that your ideology has some core destiny in this world or is some how "natural" or a "science". It's a belief you hold, it's a theory, it adds absolutely nothing to marketing Ron Paul as a successful president. Liberals, conservatives, communists, they've all done the same thing you are doing right now, they've all marketed their ideologies to promote their candidates. In the end, actions and the results of those actions speak louder than words.

Of course, you triumphantly declare the assertion that individual rights are a part of natural law is merely "ideology", not because you successfully refuted any argument I made to support the contention that rights are self evidently natural phenomenon, simply just because.

I realize this thread is about Ron Paul, but my contention with your arguments made were not that you don't like Ron Paul, and frankly I tend to agree with most of your assessment that Paul would not make a difference even if he were elected President and the government will continue to expand regardless of what Ron Paul says, or even does. Will his policies be disastrous? I am not even willing to hazard a guess on what those policies will be. Ronald Regan payed an awful lot of lip service to small government, all the while expanding it more than his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, did. Carter expanded the government more than Ford, and while Ford not so much more than Nixon, Nixon certainly expanded government. The agenda has been clear for quite some time, and that is expanded government.

Here is my problem with the advocates of a continued expansion of government; they insist on denying and disparaging rights.

This is my contention with your posts made in this thread, and regardless of who wins the Presidency, your "side" is clearly winning. Government will continue to expand, and part of the reason it will is because even when a politician like Ron Paul comes along, instead of inspiring individuals to act according to law, and refuse to acquiesce to unlawful acts, and finally accepting their natural mantle as holders of the inherent political power.

All people possess this original political power and there is no lawful act of legislation that can declare this possession forfeit in order to gain the privilege of citizenship. There is no "social contract" and the imaginary contract presented by those who advocate this surrender of power present a contract that doesn't even make an effort to abide by the law of contracts. For the tyrant law is always presented as a capricious tool by which the tyrant can push forth their agenda. It matters not who is President, that particular executive office is not a part of Messianic legacy, and Ron Paul is being treated too much as if he were a modern day Messiah here to deliver his people from tyranny.

This kind of leader we do not need, no matter what clothing he wear, or political ideology he follows. I often hear it said that if the leaders would lead the people will surely follow, but in truth, if the people would lead it is a given that the leaders will surely follow. For you, this is anarchy. For me, individuals acting lawfully and holding unlawful acts accountable is not just justice in the terms of law and order, it is freedom, because the acts of unlawfulness extend to, and especially in regards to, government acts. Ron Paul cannot alone cannot stop this proclivity to legislate unlawfully and expect this sleight of legality to be given the respect and full force of weight, one would give to law. Ron Paul alone cannot stop the executive powers from enforcing these insane acts of legislation that are merely simulating a legal process, and acting under color of law, in order to justify their tyranny.

You can dismiss all that I have argued as merely ideology. You can hide in a cave all day long and crawl out after sunset and point to the night time sky and declare; "See! There is no sun!" This is your natural right to do so. It does not, however, make the sun any less real...any less natural...any less scientific.

Originally posted by OldCorp

At least he has principles, something both the Repubs and Dems seem to lack, and still believes in the Constitution. If he doesn't win, I may just take my Social Security and retire to a walled ex-pat community in Costa Rica.

\

What's sad is that we like him because he "still believes in the Constitution". Is a President, or candidate, or Congressman supposed to believe any other way?

/TOA

reply to post by inforeal

You couldn’t find an absolute if you looked for it, so there is no thing as absolute rights.

Since you have such a hard time spotting an absolute, I thought I might bold one for you in hopes it might help you spot it. Best of luck.

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

My example of living in the woods has to do with becoming truly free to have “absolute rights” [a rare occurrence in the real world] because that person is alone and has fewer obligations to others..

You couldn’t find an absolute if you looked for it, so there is no thing as absolute rights.

There are relative rights as there are relative freedoms. Neither are absolute, that’s what I was referring you to

You, Ron Paul and the other libertarians don’t understand that. In the real world rights relative

Rights are absolute. When we become forced to have to try to hold on to them or win them back is when the problems arise. When we continue to let them be eroded away, rights become privileges.

/TOA

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If you find an absolute, you would find God. That’s the chance you have of finding such a thing.

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If you find an absolute, you would find God. That’s the chance you have of finding such a thing.

Are you being purposely obtuse, or do you just not get it? By declaring that there are no absolutes you have presented us with an absolute. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Are you being purposely obtuse, or do you just not get it? By declaring that there are no absolutes you have presented us with an absolute. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

Not really, one can on occasion find an absolute in an abstract. But not in practical reality, UNLESS one is talking metaphysical. Your notion of my idea that there are no absolutes being an absolute in itself is an oxymoron. WHY? Because you are dealing on the practical and abstract levels at the same time—double meanings in your brain.

Because notions such as freedom and rights are abstracts . . . . You think you have inalienable rights; well you don’t . . . because such a terminology “inalienable rights” is an abstract, that when applied to practical reality has to be paired down and fitted into the norms of society, or we would have anarchy.

Rights are mitigated by obligations that come with complexity. The libertarian philosophy has to define within the complexities of postmodern society and civilization the nuances of unalienable rights.

This is why he'll always be portrayed by mainstream media as "never having a chance". Even with this portrayal, support is in the double digits.

Just think, if Dr Paul ever got fair coverage, he'd be a front runner.

He makes so much sense, the mainstream politicos are very scared of his message getting out to the voters at large.

Ron Paul 2012.

reply to post by inforeal

Not really, one can on occasion find an absolute in an abstract. But not in practical reality, UNLESS one is talking metaphysical. Your notion of my idea that there are no absolutes being an absolute in itself is an oxymoron. WHY? Because you are dealing on the practical and abstract levels at the same time—double meanings in your brain.

Psychobabble won't save you now. When we assert natural law, we are not talking in abstractions, we are talking in the practical world, and it is you who is hopelessly attempting to make it an abstraction so then you can justify your impracticability, all the while declaring the practical impractical. It is mysticism to the nth degree.

Because notions such as freedom and rights are abstracts

Simply declaring a thing to be true does not make the thing true. You have offered no sound logic, and certainly not any scientific method to falsify natural rights, you have just simply dismissed outright without bothering to employ any sound method to refute it. You hope to make assertions such as the paradoxical statement that there are no absolutes, only in making such an assertion proving quite the opposite, that there are indeed absolutes. In the practical world, there are plenty of absolutes, and among those, are individual rights.

To support the assertion that rights are a naturally occurring phenomenon self evident in the practical world I have spoke to the natural right to self defense and pointed to the self evident thorns of a rose, the self evident needles of a porcupine and the skunks odor in order to offer up sound, irrefutable evidence that these natural acts of self defense were not granted to the rose, porcupine, and skunk, by some magnanimous artifice such as government, but because their right to self defense clearly exists. It is not some abstraction, it is a self evident phenomenon existing in the practical world across the board, which makes it simple, true, universal and absolute. The same right to self defense the rose has, the porcupine has, the skunk has, people have. All creatures, great and small have the right to self defense.

Tell the howling coyote they have no natural right to howl. Make the argument that their right to howl is really just a privilege, and their belief it is a natural right is merely an abstract ideal. Go ahead. See how far that gets you. Or, fall prey to the trap of responding with a silly laughing emoticon informing your shot gun silencing the coyote proves their right to howl is only an abstract idea, and doesn't really exist in the practical world.

You think you have inalienable rights; well you don’t . . . because such a terminology “inalienable rights” is an abstract, that when applied to practical reality has to be paired down and fitted into the norms of society, or we would have anarchy.

This is, quite simply, a lie. Unalienable rights are by definition, non transferable rights. That is all. It does no damage at all to a society to maintain a system of government where the rule of law is founded on the observable fact that all humans possess certain unalienable rights. No right will "trump" another under these circumstances, the government restrained by the rule of law will not dissolve into "anarchy" and it is patently absurd to declare that a call to obey the rule of law is akin to anarchy. It is Orwellian doublespeak, and only the ignorant, and/or apathetic will fall prey to it.

So, which one are you? You know what they say, don't you? If you took a poll asking the people which is a greater problem, 50% would answer "I don't know" and the other 50% would answer "I don't care". This is a pessimistic joke of the highest order. It remains cynical in its world view. You can allow language to speak you, or you can do what is necessary to speak language and not allow it to speak you. That choice is yours. The expedient choice is to allow language to speak you. The more difficult task is to speak language. If you do not want to speak language and simply allow it to speak you, I understand. However, if this is your choice, this is why your world view becomes one where truth cannot be known, and laws are simply ideas or belief sets. Language has dictated your world view, and you have become the effect of that.

You believe you can dismiss what is practically observable, and by practically observable, I mean observable in the real natural world as opposed to the imaginary world of your abstractions, and assert that because you have allowed language to speak you that all of us are subject to the same absolute, even though that language you speak say's things like "there are no absolutes", and words are not things that can be used to clearly define the environment around us, they are pliable concepts that can mean whatever we want them to mean.

You can believe this if you want. In fact, you have the natural right to hold this belief. However, A is still A, and there are no contradictions, and when you find a contradiction, all you have to do is check your premise to understand where you went wrong. Some are willing to do this, and the others are not.