Support NeoGAF

[seanoff]

This only makes sense if you begin from the viewpoint that the poor and minorities are entitled to social benefits in the first place. If the government theoretically spent 0 dollars, how is anyone "hurt"?

look up French Revolution. This is what happens under your model. Then those with money lose their heads, literally.

 

[Veezy]

Why do college students love this guy? Cause he loves pot?

Well, yes. Also, because he presents his opinions as if they are unchallengeable facts and since he mostly engages with his own supports is rarely put in a situation to actually have to defend his beliefs. However, when he's backed into a corner, you see just how little his ideas make sense. See the "so you would just let him die" question when he was running to be the Republican candidate.

 

[Technosteve]

i think libertarians are fundamentally anti american.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

By not employing people mainly. Not supporting those who can't work. Those who have been laid off recently.Those who are perusing higher education. Those who can't afford healthcare. Those who have skills but can't afford to update the skills through trade schools.

In many different ways the government not spending hurts people.

You didn't address my statement at all, really. Again, you've entrenched yourself in the viewpoint that the government exists to support the underprivileged, in which case yes, austerity is harmful. However, if you were to look at the government's role as being simply to protect the people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, then the government spending 0 dollars doesn't "hurt" anyone.

I know what you're saying and where you're coming from. I'm just pointing out that your idea of government's role is by no means the only one out there.

 

[Mahzkrieg]

Has he tried to legislate his personal beliefs on gay marriage and abortion?

I want a United States where people live by their own values and don't force those values on others.

Don't want to marry another man? No problem. You don't have to.
Want to marry another man? No problem. You can go for it.
Same goes for abortion.

I'm for personal liberty and fiscally that means allowing people the right to have more control over their lives and money, something that I don't agree with liberal democrats on.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

You didn't address my statement at all, really. Again, you've entrenched yourself in the viewpoint that the government exists to support the underprivileged, in which case yes, austerity is harmful. However, if you were to look at the government's role as being simply to protect the people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, then the government spending 0 dollars doesn't "hurt" anyone.

I know what you're saying and where you're coming from. I'm just pointing out that your idea of government's role is by no means the only one out there.

Nope, but the most beneficial. And we have chosen our government to be more than just "aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud". Very little governments do just that and if they do, it's because they are a country like Somalia, war torn, in shambles.

 

[The Technomancer]

But you do hate freedom. You want order and equality based on your perspective of what equality is. You do not want freedom. Just admit that; it's a legitimate opinion to have.

No, its not, because freedom does not exist on a linear scale that increases and decreases. It is possible to trade some freedoms for other, different freedoms.

 

[Valnen]

I know what you're saying and where you're coming from. I'm just pointing out that your idea of government's role is by no means the only one out there.

And people that think the government should not be there to help those who cannot always help themselves should get out of the country because they are scum. You are condemning millions of disabled people to death or worse by such beliefs.

 

[Technosteve]

Has he tried to legislate his personal beliefs on gay marriage and abortion?

I want a United States where people live by their own values and don't force those values on others.

Don't want to marry another man? No problem. You don't have to.
Want to marry another man? No problem. You can go for it.
Same goes for abortion.

I'm for personal liberty and fiscally that means allowing people the right to have more control over their lives and money, something that I don't agree with liberal democrats on.

He's a republican that should answer your question.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Has he tried to legislate his personal beliefs on gay marriage and abortion?

Yes.

 

[Kusagari]

Has he tried to legislate his personal beliefs on gay marriage and abortion?

I want a United States where people live by their own values and don't force those values on others.

Don't want to marry another man? No problem. You don't have to.
Want to marry another man? No problem. You can go for it.
Same goes for abortion.

I'm for personal liberty and fiscally that means allowing people the right to have more control over their lives and money, something that I don't agree with liberal democrats on.

He supported DOMA. He has said he wants abortion to be illegal. He would have no problem with states making sodomy illegal.

 

[Dude Abides]

Has he tried to legislate his personal beliefs on gay marriage and abortion?

Yes.

It's strange how many Paul fans know so little about his record.

 

[Veezy]

Has he tried to legislate his personal beliefs on gay marriage and abortion?

I want a United States where people live by their own values and don't force those values on others.

Don't want to marry another man? No problem. You don't have to.
Want to marry another man? No problem. You can go for it.
Same goes for abortion.

I'm for personal liberty and fiscally that means allowing people the right to have more control over their lives and money, something that I don't agree with liberal democrats on.

Ron Paul on DOMA.

Also, the Marriage Protection Act:

On October 16, 2003, the bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by John Hostettler (R–Indiana) and immediately referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was co-sponsored by Ron Paul of Texas.[2] The legislation passed the House by a vote of 233 to 194. The Senate referred the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 7, 2004, where it died in committee.

On abortion:

On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“

I know we’re all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn’t go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Nobody would be hurt...if there were no unemployed or disabled people in the country. But hey, everyone for themselves right?

Fuck libertarians and that line of thinking. It's evil. I know people that would starve to death if a libertarian was elected.

People starve to death today. In America. Does Obama have that blood on his hands? Of course not.

Libertarianism is not equatable with "everyone for themselves" in the way that you've framed it here. Every man is not an island - I believe that very strongly. Humans are incredibly social and naturally empathetic, and to advance far up the societal ladder probably requires extensive help. But extensive federal intervention is not a prerequisite for any of that.

 

[Mahzkrieg]

I've heard interviews to the contrary. Sounds like he wants to put state's rights above personal liberty. A shame and I disagree with him on those issues.

But by in large I love his foreign policy and I'd love to see his domestic fiscal policy in action.
Maybe we can get somebody to run who is more socially liberal than he was.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Since the holidays are approaching, I'll quote Dickens:

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Nope, but the most beneficial. And we have chosen our government to be more than just "aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud". Very little governments do just that and if they do, it's because they are a country like Somalia, war torn, in shambles.

What? Somalia's government is basically non-existant. You really think it enforces contract breaches and theft? Aggression? Fraud?

 

[Valnen]

People starve to death today. In America. Does Obama have that blood on his hands? Of course not.

There would be a LOT more people starving and suffering if a libertarian was in office getting his way. But hey, fuck the disabled right?

Social programs exist because they are necessary for this country not being a shitty place.

 

[The Technomancer]

People starve to death today. In America. Does Obama have that blood on his hands? Of course not.

Libertarianism is not equatable with "everyone for themselves" in the way that you've framed it here. Every man is not an island - I believe that very strongly. Humans are incredibly social and naturally empathetic, and to advance far up the societal ladder probably requires extensive help. But extensive federal intervention is not a prerequisite for any of that.

But there are programs that can be run more optinally and efficiently from a federal perspective. I would not want, for example, the Post Office to be run by states or counties, or heaven forbid private companies.

 

[KHarvey16]

...and I'd love to see his domestic fiscal policy in action.

For the love of all that is good, why? Do you hate this country that much?

 

[Mahzkrieg]

For the love of all that is good, why? Do you hate this country that much?

We are 16 trillion dollars in debt.
And the Federal Reserve prints money without any checks or balances and ZERO transparency.

I think the current system is broken. Just my opinion.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

What? Somalia's government is basically non-existant. You really think it enforces contract breaches and theft? Aggression? Fraud?

It's ineffectual. Same as your hypothetical government.

We are 16 trillion dollars in debt.
And the Federal Reserve prints money without any checks or balances and ZERO transparency.

I think the current system is broken. Just my opinion.

The fed is overlooked by the CBO and releases its accounting. The Ron Paul Fed bill was something that was not needed because the fed already volunteers that information to the public.
Our debt is a non-issue because we can pay it instantly if we wanted to. Being in debt is actually a good thing for our government and our economy.

 

[The Technomancer]

We are 16 trillion dollars in debt.
And the Federal Reserve prints money without any checks or balances and ZERO transparency.

I think the current system is broken. Just my opinion.

Why do you think its broken? What, specifically, do you see as the effects of those things you mentioned? Not just some intrinsic idea of "badness" to them.

 

[Veezy]

We are 16 trillion dollars in debt.
And the Federal Reserve prints money without any checks or balances and ZERO transparency.

I think the current system is broken. Just my opinion.

The debt's a problem?

 

[Half and half]

But by in large I love his foreign policy and I'd love to see his domestic fiscal policy in action.

What specific foreign and domestic policy would you like to see in action?

Can you be specific on it's operations?

I can be convinced.

 

[MuggerMD]

Nerd in a suit.

 

[Czigga]

Idealism is easy when you're just starting out your educational career. And pot.

Funny you mention that when liberalism is clearly the dominant mantra among college age kids, by far.

There are reasons besides people feeling "entitled" that we, as a society, should take care of each other. It's foolish, and completely daft, to think otherwise.

I agree we should take care of each other. I think everyone agrees. Do you feel like you are more compassionate and a better person than the person next to you? Probably no more than that person thinks of his/herself over you.

I think Ron Paul agrees with you also. That's the main source of RP's belief system. The idea that we can and will take care of each other, without the need for government force. Mankind by nature resists tyranny, force, etc. whatever you want to call it. People naturally don't want to be told "give this person $5, or else." It creates a disconnect between the giver and the receiver.

However if that same person said, "please give me $5, I can't feed myself or my family otherwise", the giver would be far more likely to give that $5 and feel better about himself for doing so. Likewise, the receiver would be more appreciative knowing that that person gave it for no other reason than compassion or sympathy.

That's what bothers me most about people hating on RP and/or libertarians is this main misunderstanding. It's not 'every man for himself'. It's the complete opposite.

 

[Technosteve]

Libertarianism as Americans see it is a throw back to the wild west days, it is a fantasy that libertarians imagine for themselves.

 

[KHarvey16]

We are 16 trillion dollars in debt.
And the Federal Reserve prints money without any checks or balances and ZERO transparency.

I think the current system is broken. Just my opinion.

You listed the national debt and made an unsupported assertion about an organization you no doubt understand little. Why does the first paragraph support the second? What does the debt matter? Explain. Don't give me the "oh it's obvious and if you don't get it I won't explain..." nonsense. Go over why the debt needs to be addressed right now or why, if not, we'll all suffer.

 

[ronito]

An oldie but a goodie

 

[The Technomancer]

Funny you mention that when liberalism is clearly the dominant mantra among college age kids, by far.



I agree we should take care of each other. I think everyone agrees. Do you feel like you are more compassionate and a better person than the person next to you? Probably no more than that person thinks of his/herself over you.

I think Ron Paul agrees with you also. That's the main source of RP's belief system. The idea that we can and will take care of each other, without the need for government force. Mankind by nature resists tyranny, force, etc. whatever you want to call it. People naturally don't want to be told "give this person $5, or else." It creates a disconnect between the giver and the receiver.

However if that same person said, "please give me $5, I can't feed myself or my family otherwise", the giver would be far more likely to give that $5 and feel better about himself for doing so. Likewise, the receiver would be more appreciative knowing that that person gave it for no other reason than compassion or sympathy.

So, to be clear, you believe that in the absence of various government programs providing healthcare and services and sustinence to those in need, charity would step up to such a proportional degree that there would be no significant negative impact on the population?

If I've accuratly represented you, why do you then think those programs were implemented in the first place? Why were food stamps created if charity was sufficient to feed the starving and needy?

 

[Czigga]

But there are programs that can be run more optinally and efficiently from a federal perspective. I would not want, for example, the Post Office to be run by states or counties, or heaven forbid private companies.

Lol, of all gov't programs you list the post office? The post office is a prime example of gov't waste and inefficiency. They have a monopoly on mail service and they still lose money.

Private companies like Fedex and UPS are cleaning house these days.

You need to use a better example.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

There would be a LOT more people starving and suffering if a libertarian was in office getting his way. But hey, fuck the disabled right?

Of all the bizarre and under-formulated attacks I hear, this is probably the dumbest. I hate the disabled because I value personal liberty? The two are completely unrelated. You have no way of knowing if/how much I give to charity, or how much time I may spend directly helping the underprivileged. You have no idea what I do for a living, or what my life situation is, how many of my personal friends/relatives may be disabled. You know nothing about me. To make such a large and quite frankly offending personal statement betrays your lack of actual, rational, non-emotionally charged thoughts.

Your vitriol is getting less and less precise.

 

[ronito]

Lol, of all gov't programs you list the post office? The post office is a prime example of gov't waste and inefficiency. They have a monopoly on mail service and they still lose money.

Private companies like Fedex and UPS are cleaning house these days.

You need to use a better example.

Well you're right. He should've picked better. At least there's that:

According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.

 

[Mahzkrieg]

What specific foreign and domestic policy would you like to see in action?

Can you be specific on it's operations?

I can be convinced.

I like the idea of letting nations handle themselves.
I like the idea of not having troops and bases spread all over the globe.
I like the idea of not initiating war and I like the idea that Congress has to approve war.

I won't get into domestic fiscal policy since the GAFMIND disagrees. It would be pointless.
I respectfully disagree having been persuaded by Schiff and Paul.

 

[The Technomancer]

Lol, of all gov't programs you list the post office? The post office is a prime example of gov't waste and inefficiency. They have a monopoly on mail service and they still lose money.

Private companies like Fedex and UPS are cleaning house these days.

You need to use a better example.

I can post a letter for across town in my mailbox for a few cents and know that it will arrive in its destination the next day. I've had UPS leave messages saying "checked, no-one was home, did not deliver" when I've been home all day. The post office is reliable. And I'm sure you find this blasphemous, but there's more to life than profit.

(And its losing money because congress suddenly forced it to start saving for fifty years of pensions)

 

[Crazyorloco]

"•Why can’t Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?"

I went to home depot the other day and they had a huge selection of light bulbs...Am I missing something here?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I won't get into domestic fiscal policy since the GAFMIND disagrees.

Falling back on this already? *tut*

 

[KHarvey16]

I won't get into domestic fiscal policy since the GAFMIND disagrees. It would be pointless.
I respectfully disagree having been persuaded by Schiff and Paul.

You coward.

 

[FyreWulff]

Lol, of all gov't programs you list the post office? The post office is a prime example of gov't waste and inefficiency. They have a monopoly on mail service and they still lose money.

Private companies like Fedex and UPS are cleaning house these days.

You need to use a better example.

They're only losing money at the moment from having to prefund pensions for 75 years.

Also FedEx and UPS don't deliver to all the addresses USPS do.


edit: also seriously, another raw milk guy? Do people realize how dangerous raw milk is?

 

[Mahzkrieg]

You coward.

It would get us nowhere.
I didn't join this thread to debate and argue.
I respectfully disagree with you. That's a fine thing to do.

 

[The Technomancer]

It would get us nowhere.
I didn't join this thread to debate and argue.
I respectfully disagree with you. That's a fine thing to do.

Look, you don't have to get into an argument but I just want to hear like, one sentence about why the debt is a problem that isn't a tautology. I just want to know what you think.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

It's ineffectual. Same as your hypothetical government.

I'm confused. This seriously makes zero sense to me, I can't understand what you're saying. A hypothetical Libertarian government has nothing to do with the actual government of Somalia, which for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. What are you comparing? Are you seriously saying limited government wouldn't "work" because the hypothetical one you pulled out of your ass is equivalent to modern Somalia?

 

[KHarvey16]

It would get us nowhere.
I didn't join this thread to debate and argue.
I respectfully disagree with you. That's a fine thing to do.

You believe things that aren't true. Schiff and Paul are both economics morons and following their ideas about this issue is seriously detrimental to your understanding of the world around you. I think you know this but want to believe it anyway, since someone secure in their outlook wouldn't object to discussing it.

 

[Technosteve]

I like the idea of letting nations handle themselves.
I like the idea of not having troops and bases spread all over the globe.
I like the idea of not initiating war and I like the idea that Congress has to approve war.

I won't get into domestic fiscal policy since the GAFMIND disagrees. It would be pointless.
I respectfully disagree having been persuaded by Schiff and Paul.

we can talk about fiscal policy when you understand what fiat money and why the gold standard failed.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Yes.

It's strange how many Paul fans know so little about his record.

It's incredible isn't it?

I've honestly never had a Ron Paul fanatic correctly identify Paul's stance and actions on abortion. Up until very recently his biggest "fan site" had his stance on abortion 100% wrong even.

They all think he wants to make it a States rights issue, and he lets them think it by using double speak. He brings up the idea that the States would be required to figure out enforcement.

LOL.. kind of like murder.. which abortion would become under Paul's legislation.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I'm confused. This seriously makes zero sense to me, I can't understand what you're saying. A hypothetical Libertarian government has nothing to do with the actual government of Somalia, which for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. What are you comparing? Are you seriously saying limited government wouldn't "work" because the hypothetical one you pulled out of your ass is equivalent to modern Somalia?

A limited small government with very little economic powers is powerless. Especially with no control over their money supply.
I did pull Somalia out of my ass, though. It was an easy comparison.

 

[Arksy]

Look, you don't have to get into an argument but I just want to hear like, one sentence about why the debt is a problem that isn't a tautology. I just want to know what you think.

The US dollar is seen as the world currency. That's the currency arbitragers retreat to when there's turbulence in financial markets. It is a huge problem to the US if the rest of the world stops seeing the US dollar as the safest currency in the world. This might be because there are concerns they can’t pay back the debt or might default. It’s not realistic to assume that this will be the case at the moment but it could very well be an issue going forward if you keep piling on debt at a staggering rate.

Secondly there is an issue that servicing the interest on those debt obligations might have to come from future generations. Not a huge concern because interest rates are negligible at current but they will be required to stay low for the duration of this massive debt burden. Low interest rates have their own set of problems such as disincentivising foreign investment and thrift.

 

[The Technomancer]

The US dollar is seen as the world currency. That's the currency arbitragers retreat to when there's turbulence in financial markets. It is a huge problem to the US if the rest of the world stops seeing the US dollar as the safest currency in the world. This might be because there are concerns they can’t pay back the debt or might default. It’s not realistic to assume that this will be the case at the moment but it could very well be an issue going forward if you keep piling on debt at a staggering rate.

Secondly there is an issue that servicing the interest on those debt obligations might have to come from future generations. Not a huge concern because interest rates are negligible at current but they will be required to stay low for the duration of this massive debt burden. Low interest rates have their own set of problems such as disincentivising foreign investment and thrift.

Thank you. Most of the time the argument just seems to boil down to "the debt is bad because the debt is bad, m'kay"

 

[Mahzkrieg]

Look, you don't have to get into an argument but I just want to hear like, one sentence about why the debt is a problem that isn't a tautology. I just want to know what you think.

I think the debt to GDP ratio is trending in a dangerous direction. Its now over 100%
I think if that ratio keeps rising to Greece/Japan levels we could be in for similar debt crisis situations

Is that alarmist? I don't think it is.
I'd love to see that ratio drop back down to sustainable levels.