Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-06-2012, 04:28 PM   #76
Craig234
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 32,833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nextJin View Post
I find it funny how people keep associating libertarians with anarchy or anti-government. There is a strong difference between limited constitutional government and no government at all. A serious case can be made about several departments in the Federal government or the size and scope of our gigantic military machine.
Understand part of the opinion about Libertarians is that they are deluded.

In other words, that Libertarians are seduced by their ideology and ignorant about what would actually happen the same way communists were.

'Society will be one big happy group all taking care of each other, nice!'

And Libertarians are clueless about how power works and would unwittingly enslave society.

Look at societies with massive concentrations of wealth and the people in economic slavery to the wealthy few. It's very, very hard for those people to improve that.

Libertarians are deluded about how everyone will have this mysterious 'freedom'. Wrong.

The protection for people is in the power of the vote when used well.

Libertarians' talk of 'freedom' only applies to the few wealthy, practically speaking. Just as 'freedom of speech' is much more useful to those who own the mass media.

You have every right to make a sign and go to the conventions and hold it in a 'free speech zone'. That'll be important, compared to the right-wing media machine, right?

Libertarians are really anti-democracy - the whole idea of 'society' and 'public good' apart from 'money is all that matters'.

If they had their way we'd have tyranny and they could tell us how that's not what they had wanted, just as communists can say how Stalin and Mao were perversions. Big help.

But like with any ideologues like that, how are you going to explain it to them?

That's why the discussions are useless with Libertarians - you point out the harmful effects, they spout the utopia, 'oh no, it'll be really good!'

There are two kinds of Libertarians - the more ignorant who should look at the 1890's and learn the lessons of corrupt concentrated wealth; and the more evil who understand those lessons and that's what they want for society. Society needs reasonably distributed wealth for the good of the people. The wealthy have long fought that - after centuries of the 'royal' and colonial models doing great for the wealthy, there was a bit of a shift largely from the American FDR period - and the wealthy are finding ways to reverse that.

Libertarians play into their hands, get rid of that useless democracy and be free! 'Limited government' means 'limited power for the people' - undo the American system.

What matters isn't 'government versus private' - it doesn't matter whether the tyranny comes from concentrated power called government - such as in monarchies or China - or whether it's from concentrated power called private - such as the US gilded age or mafia run societies or the Libertarian system. Tyranny of concentrated power and wealth is tyranny.

Democracy, when it's working (not owned by money, for example), is the correction for that concentrated wealth and power, the best we've found. That's the progressives.

Save234
Craig234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 04:33 PM   #77
Craig234
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 32,833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nextJin View Post
Pretty much, he got elected as a true tea party republican. The tea party is flooded with bullshit but Rand is one of the few actual ones worthy of the name. They are not anywhere near as hardcore as the liberty movement.

Mind you, they like Rand more than 95% of the Republicans in office. It's just that if a Liberty guy comes along after Paul I am not entirely sure how it would go. Rand would have a better shot in 2016 though I would imagine because some Liberty guys would bleed over.
You mean the phony who wouldn't admit his own position on national television on supporting the right to have racial segregation in businesses open to the public?

The one who played games creating his own phony medical 'board' to exaggerate his qualifications, as I recall?
Craig234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 04:35 PM   #78
nextJin
Golden Member
 
nextJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Korea
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon law View Post
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have my sympathy Jin, so I shall cast you a small bone in the hopes it will make you feel better.

Because in late breaking news, Ron Paul swept all 24 non committed delegates in Maine.

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-wins-majo...174422402.html
Which was mentioned yesterday in this thread. Pay attention, things are happening none of which is getting any national attention.
nextJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 04:35 PM   #79
Lemon law
Lifer
 
Lemon law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nextJin View Post
I'd bet my children also, it's not happening. Well at least not the second part, Paul will likely pull the majority of the Libertarians.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no problem with your statement Jin, your problem is, in terms of the general American electorate, the sum of Ron Paul libertarians plus the sum of Gary Johnson Libertarians still add up to basically zero.
Lemon law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 04:57 PM   #80
nextJin
Golden Member
 
nextJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Korea
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon law View Post
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no problem with your statement Jin, your problem is, in terms of the general American electorate, the sum of Ron Paul libertarians plus the sum of Gary Johnson Libertarians still add up to basically zero.
Now that I doubt, the backlash is being felt so it's definately not 0.
nextJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 05:10 PM   #81
nextJin
Golden Member
 
nextJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Korea
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
Understand part of the opinion about Libertarians is that they are deluded.

In other words, that Libertarians are seduced by their ideology and ignorant about what would actually happen the same way communists were.

'Society will be one big happy group all taking care of each other, nice!'

And Libertarians are clueless about how power works and would unwittingly enslave society.

Look at societies with massive concentrations of wealth and the people in economic slavery to the wealthy few. It's very, very hard for those people to improve that.

Libertarians are deluded about how everyone will have this mysterious 'freedom'. Wrong.

The protection for people is in the power of the vote when used well.

Libertarians' talk of 'freedom' only applies to the few wealthy, practically speaking. Just as 'freedom of speech' is much more useful to those who own the mass media.

You have every right to make a sign and go to the conventions and hold it in a 'free speech zone'. That'll be important, compared to the right-wing media machine, right?

Libertarians are really anti-democracy - the whole idea of 'society' and 'public good' apart from 'money is all that matters'.

If they had their way we'd have tyranny and they could tell us how that's not what they had wanted, just as communists can say how Stalin and Mao were perversions. Big help.

But like with any ideologues like that, how are you going to explain it to them?

That's why the discussions are useless with Libertarians - you point out the harmful effects, they spout the utopia, 'oh no, it'll be really good!'

There are two kinds of Libertarians - the more ignorant who should look at the 1890's and learn the lessons of corrupt concentrated wealth; and the more evil who understand those lessons and that's what they want for society. Society needs reasonably distributed wealth for the good of the people. The wealthy have long fought that - after centuries of the 'royal' and colonial models doing great for the wealthy, there was a bit of a shift largely from the American FDR period - and the wealthy are finding ways to reverse that.

Libertarians play into their hands, get rid of that useless democracy and be free! 'Limited government' means 'limited power for the people' - undo the American system.

What matters isn't 'government versus private' - it doesn't matter whether the tyranny comes from concentrated power called government - such as in monarchies or China - or whether it's from concentrated power called private - such as the US gilded age or mafia run societies or the Libertarian system. Tyranny of concentrated power and wealth is tyranny.

Democracy, when it's working (not owned by money, for example), is the correction for that concentrated wealth and power, the best we've found. That's the progressives.

Save234
You should probably read some actual Libertarian books by Libertarians. Unlike you, I read everything from Marx to Ayn, Obama to Bush, etc. I have even lowered myself enough to read Mark Levin and BillO's latest works. So I understand them all and base my opinion on what I actually agree with unlike you who is fairly uneducated in matters of different philosophies.

You listen to Maddow, Matthews, Shipley, Friedman, etc. and embrace everything they say as gospel and shun to think Americans might have any other views on the national stage. I however listen to them and try and understand where they are coming from. I agree with them on somethings and understand OWS. I also understand the tea party movement and the Liberty movement, you however refuse to hear them screaming to the wind then kneeling to the ground giving Obama 3 Hail Marysí.

I appreciate open dialog, minds and critical thinkers. Your posts prove critical thinking is impossible for you unlike some other left leaning Americans in these forums.

Feel free to flame away, your pretty good at insults and ass hattery.
nextJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 05:12 PM   #82
nextJin
Golden Member
 
nextJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Korea
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
You mean the phony who wouldn't admit his own position on national television on supporting the right to have racial segregation in businesses open to the public?

The one who played games creating his own phony medical 'board' to exaggerate his qualifications, as I recall?
Last I heard he was with Republicans and you label them all as [insult here], so what does it matter? Higher post count?
nextJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 06:14 PM   #83
Lemon law
Lifer
 
Lemon law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 20,991
Default

OK, Nextjin,

I can somewhat understand your unabiding faith in what amounts to yet another Utopian
ideal, but sadly fibertarianism is just another flawed ideal very similar to communism, the Taliban, the Shaker ideas, or all the other similar movements in human history.

On paper, Fibertarianism looks as good as any other Utopian idea, but all such Utopian schemes have two common flaws. (1) The human spirit may be strong, but human flesh is notoriously weak. Inevitable the leaders oppress the followers and enrich themselves to the detriment of the general population. Or the double fear with Libertarianism is that a libertarian government will fail to their duty to to stop thugs like Bernie Madoff from totally scamming the general public. (2) A libertarian type government is quite common with early humans with hunter gathers technology. Any human society in human history more complex have never never in world history has ever tried a Fibertarian government society. Your fantasy Nextjin is that the omission of even one successful Fibertarian government in the entire history of the world is no mere accident.

No one in modern human history has ever been crazy enough to try it a fibertarian style government and for very good reasons.

(3) Then there is another thing to say. As the USA, in 1776 started out as a very small agrarian nation, to a super power today as we built government power and infrastructure we never would have achieved with a Fibertarian government. And now that Nextjin, touts a libertarian government he ignores the fact that the first tenet of Fibertarian is to let the infrastructure to go to hell in a handbasket as we go straight back to a hunter gathering society.

In short nextjin, you and Ron Paul have a fine half backed fantasy, but its no more practical than Communism, the Taliban, or all the other Utopian schemes already in the scrap bin of human history.
Lemon law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 07:31 PM   #84
schneiderguy
Lifer
 
schneiderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 6'1" above California, U.S.A. Earth
Posts: 10,606
Default

Gather round little children, it's story time with schneiderguy!

Once upon a time, in the late 18th century, there was a group of people who decided to do away with the tyrannical rule of the British government and form their own. Their new government would be deliberately limited in scope and size, so this new government couldn't morph into something like the British government these people just escaped. It could even be described as a "libertarian utopia". Fast forward a couple hundred years, and this little experiment had grown into the most powerful, successful, and free country in the entire world. It was called the United States of America.

Unfortunately, there was a threat to the freedom of the citizens of this country, in the form of so called "progressives" and more recently neo-conservatives. They began to pass regulation upon regulation, law upon law, so that they could mold this once great country into something the founding fathers never intended. They looked upon with envy at Europe, the place the founding fathers had escaped just two centuries prior. But Europe was not a place to be envied. The citizens of Europe had never tasted freedom like Americans had, so they were more than happy to submit to the ever growing welfare and police state. "If only we could be as enlightened as them!", people like Craig234 cried. "If only the government took care of everything! There would be no more racism, no more poverty, and everyone would live happily ever after!". Undeterred by the massive failure that the European welfare states were, they pushed their agenda forward. By the year 2012, the end was near for the once great United States of America.

Only one man stood in their way. His name was Ron Paul. He stood for everything the once great nation of the United States of America once stood for - equality, opportunity, and most importantly, freedom. His movement began to pick up steam, attracting like-minded individuals who were passionate about returning the US to its libertarian roots. "But no!" the progressives and neoconservatives screamed. "A libertarian society has never been tried and obviously won't work!". Blinded by their lust for power and control over their fellow citizens, these people had forgotten where the once great country they lived in had come from. Only Ron Paul, the champion of liberty and freedom could defeat them. They lashed out at him whenever they could, trying to make him look like a bad guy so that his message of freedom wouldn't derail their statist agenda.

Now we are at the present. There are two ways this story can end.

1. Elect Ron Paul (or other similar candidate). The budget deficit will be eliminated. Tyrannical government agencies like the TSA and ATF will be eliminated. The welfare state will be massively cut, forcing people to actually find a job. Prosperity will return to the United States, especially since Europe will be lying in ruins after it implodes and Hitler Jr. starts WWIII.

2. Elect Obama or Romney. The budget deficit will remain unchanged, and the $15trillion+ debt will continue to grow. The government will grow ever more bloated, until it reaches over 50% of GDP. The welfare state will be expanded, and the middle class will be almost wiped out. Unemployment will remain high, because the evil rich people that give people jobs will leave the country. The United States will join Europe in succumbing to massive debts and a fat and lazy populace.

tl;dr -
People who say libertarian countries can't work are fucking retarded and need to study the history of a little country called "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerD View Post
"Retard" isn't a strong enough word for schneiderguy's level of retardation.
schneiderguy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 08:02 PM   #85
nextJin
Golden Member
 
nextJin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Korea
Posts: 1,814
Default

An amusing rant, which has about as much sense as saying because 99% of the modern world does not eat paleo it's obviously the worst way to eat.

You too should read my statements above about reading actual books. Liberal blogs are entertaining certainly but skewed slightly with true Libertarian understanding.
nextJin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 09:01 PM   #86
Abraxas
Golden Member
 
Abraxas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,054
Default

Why Schneider, I had no idea you wrote historical fiction! That's wonderful. Just a couple brief editorial notes though to aid you in getting published.

First, you might want to talk less about Europe as though it hasn't changed since the American Revolution. Off the top of my head, for instance, Europe of the era was still largely controlled by monarchs, whereas by the period leftists were looking to Europe for inspiration, was more democratic than the US in a lot of ways.

Also, you might want to drop the references to Europe collapsing from welfare states too. The Scandinavian countries have some of the most extensive welfare systems in Europe as well as some of the strongest economies. No, what economists will tell you is that the housing bubble burst and Europe had a lot less room to maneuver than the US not being the reserve currency of the rest of the world, plus they had the same rampant speculation that the US suffered from. Making things even worse, they tried to correct it with austerity measures, which is kind of like trying to make your car go further by draining more gas out of the tank which is why Britain is collapsing. A compelling narrative depends on realism and when you say things like the massive failure of Europe, it just isn't there.

Also, details drive the story, instead of just flat out claiming the founding fathers wanted a Libertarian utopia devoid of strong government you can fall back on the compelling conflicts that formed the heart of the creation of early America, with the Federalists, who were very much for a strong central government such as Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, and to a lesser extent George Washington himself. It was the clash between these people and those who would become then Anti-Federalists like Jefferson and Madison that would create a constitution designed to be flexible and a compromise between the two positions.

Also, you might want to spend more time on how the US came to be a dominant power, for example, having enormous amounts of untapped land that could be easily conquered to the west where Europe was pretty crowded with multiple competing powers already, relatively little military conflict, neither world war being fought largely on US soil. Also, the use of slavery, which reminds me, you might want to step back a bit on acting like everything the founding fathers did was magical and right; with the exception of Franklin none of them were abolitionists and even he owned slaves. Also, they used near slavery conditions to build things like the railroads and to work the mines that enabled rapid development which can hardly be reconciled with the idea of libertarian free association but took place during the period in which we were perhaps closest to the no government regulation model espoused by Ron Paul. Further, when the US really came into power was after WWII which was the result of all our competition being bombed into dust and a massive government hand out in the GI Bill.

On second thought, maybe you should start over. I know, do Transylvania next time, vampires are in right now.
Abraxas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 09:30 PM   #87
LegendKiller
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraxas View Post
Why Schneider, I had no idea you wrote historical fiction! That's wonderful. Just a couple brief editorial notes though to aid you in getting published.

First, you might want to talk less about Europe as though it hasn't changed since the American Revolution. Off the top of my head, for instance, Europe of the era was still largely controlled by monarchs, whereas by the period leftists were looking to Europe for inspiration, was more democratic than the US in a lot of ways.

Also, you might want to drop the references to Europe collapsing from welfare states too. The Scandinavian countries have some of the most extensive welfare systems in Europe as well as some of the strongest economies. No, what economists will tell you is that the housing bubble burst and Europe had a lot less room to maneuver than the US not being the reserve currency of the rest of the world, plus they had the same rampant speculation that the US suffered from. Making things even worse, they tried to correct it with austerity measures, which is kind of like trying to make your car go further by draining more gas out of the tank which is why Britain is collapsing. A compelling narrative depends on realism and when you say things like the massive failure of Europe, it just isn't there.

Also, details drive the story, instead of just flat out claiming the founding fathers wanted a Libertarian utopia devoid of strong government you can fall back on the compelling conflicts that formed the heart of the creation of early America, with the Federalists, who were very much for a strong central government such as Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, and to a lesser extent George Washington himself. It was the clash between these people and those who would become then Anti-Federalists like Jefferson and Madison that would create a constitution designed to be flexible and a compromise between the two positions.

Also, you might want to spend more time on how the US came to be a dominant power, for example, having enormous amounts of untapped land that could be easily conquered to the west where Europe was pretty crowded with multiple competing powers already, relatively little military conflict, neither world war being fought largely on US soil. Also, the use of slavery, which reminds me, you might want to step back a bit on acting like everything the founding fathers did was magical and right; with the exception of Franklin none of them were abolitionists and even he owned slaves. Also, they used near slavery conditions to build things like the railroads and to work the mines that enabled rapid development which can hardly be reconciled with the idea of libertarian free association but took place during the period in which we were perhaps closest to the no government regulation model espoused by Ron Paul. Further, when the US really came into power was after WWII which was the result of all our competition being bombed into dust and a massive government hand out in the GI Bill.

On second thought, maybe you should start over. I know, do Transylvania next time, vampires are in right now.
Ain't it funny that these tools utterly ignore Finland, Norway and Sweden? Or how about the Swiss?


Ain't it also funny that the motto for the revolution wasn't "no taxation", it was "no taxation without representation". A huge portion of the country was still favorable to the crown, several envoys to the King were made even while shots were fired. They didn't really mind being subject but they did mind getting taxed without getting anything in return, being sucked dry for nothing. The result was an experiment in *SELF RULE*, the Constitution wasn't the house, it was the foundation, it was up to future generations to build the house.

Further, the FF had no concept of how complex the world was. The FF had concept of interstate commerce to the extent it exists, they had no inkling of the industrial revolution. Their ideas of international trade was colonial, not even getting close to game theory or massive trading partners. The idea of non-interventionism didn't even exist, as our own freedom was bought through intervention. The idea of the government intervening in private business isn't unheard of, Barbary Pirates anybody? Ohh, let's have a huge military buildup to go protect merchants.

I mean, really, the notion of libertarianism has always been a fanciful ideology driven by people who think in a vacuum. It ignores human greed and fear and assumes that everybody will leave you to yours as long as you leave them to theirs. That is utter bullshit in history and everybody knows it.
LegendKiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 10:45 PM   #88
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraxas View Post
Why Schneider, I had no idea you wrote historical fiction! That's wonderful. Just a couple brief editorial notes though to aid you in getting published.

First, you might want to talk less about Europe as though it hasn't changed since the American Revolution. Off the top of my head, for instance, Europe of the era was still largely controlled by monarchs, whereas by the period leftists were looking to Europe for inspiration, was more democratic than the US in a lot of ways.

Also, you might want to drop the references to Europe collapsing from welfare states too. The Scandinavian countries have some of the most extensive welfare systems in Europe as well as some of the strongest economies. No, what economists will tell you is that the housing bubble burst and Europe had a lot less room to maneuver than the US not being the reserve currency of the rest of the world, plus they had the same rampant speculation that the US suffered from. Making things even worse, they tried to correct it with austerity measures, which is kind of like trying to make your car go further by draining more gas out of the tank which is why Britain is collapsing. A compelling narrative depends on realism and when you say things like the massive failure of Europe, it just isn't there.

Also, details drive the story, instead of just flat out claiming the founding fathers wanted a Libertarian utopia devoid of strong government you can fall back on the compelling conflicts that formed the heart of the creation of early America, with the Federalists, who were very much for a strong central government such as Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, and to a lesser extent George Washington himself. It was the clash between these people and those who would become then Anti-Federalists like Jefferson and Madison that would create a constitution designed to be flexible and a compromise between the two positions.

Also, you might want to spend more time on how the US came to be a dominant power, for example, having enormous amounts of untapped land that could be easily conquered to the west where Europe was pretty crowded with multiple competing powers already, relatively little military conflict, neither world war being fought largely on US soil. Also, the use of slavery, which reminds me, you might want to step back a bit on acting like everything the founding fathers did was magical and right; with the exception of Franklin none of them were abolitionists and even he owned slaves. Also, they used near slavery conditions to build things like the railroads and to work the mines that enabled rapid development which can hardly be reconciled with the idea of libertarian free association but took place during the period in which we were perhaps closest to the no government regulation model espoused by Ron Paul. Further, when the US really came into power was after WWII which was the result of all our competition being bombed into dust and a massive government hand out in the GI Bill.

On second thought, maybe you should start over. I know, do Transylvania next time, vampires are in right now.
This is the most eloquently written and witty intellectual beat down I have ever read.
sMiLeYz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 10:58 PM   #89
LegendKiller
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sMiLeYz View Post
This is the most eloquently written and witty intellectual beat down I have ever read.
Too bad it is massively historically inaccurate, is full of logical fallacies and completely ignores reality. Other than that, it's poorly written but humorous for no other reason than the person writing it is so utterly devoid of any sense of truth.
LegendKiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 11:05 PM   #90
Abraxas
Golden Member
 
Abraxas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendKiller View Post
Too bad it is massively historically inaccurate, is full of logical fallacies and completely ignores reality. Other than that, it's poorly written but humorous for no other reason than the person writing it is so utterly devoid of any sense of truth.
Then by all means, set the record straight.
Abraxas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 11:38 PM   #91
eskimospy
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 33,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraxas View Post
Then by all means, set the record straight.
I'm pretty sure he was shitting on schneiderguy, not you.
eskimospy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 11:40 PM   #92
Abraxas
Golden Member
 
Abraxas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy View Post
I'm pretty sure he was shitting on schneiderguy, not you.
Could be, the shoe certainly fits. Sometimes it can be hard to tell. :/
Abraxas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2012, 11:40 PM   #93
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 20,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendKiller View Post
The young and dumb demographic is for him, mainly the ones without families or careers (those that are are ones that haven't grown up or hate their lives). Those of us who realize how silly the whole "anarchy" movement is, realize that you don't need to do a 180 in order to change the system, we didn't get here by doing that and we don't get out of here by doing that.

Anarchy sounds great, everybody do what they want! Until you realize that it's nothing more than Somalia writ large. Ron Paul's type of republic is more like Mexico as somebody said.

Plutocracy sounds even better, which is what RP's "revolution" would result in.
The young and dumb demographic is for Obama, though not as strongly as in 2008. (Which is why he's trying to make everyone else subsidize their education.)

I also find it very strange that you rip on Anarchist for being a loser who "sucks off his parents all of the way through, and likely past, college" yet you embrace a political party and philosophy dedicated to ensuring that as many people as possible "suck off" of strangers. Seems like a strange concept that it's okay to live off of strangers' money taken by threat of force but it's not okay to live off of your parents' money freely given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soundforbjt View Post
I like G. Johnson way more than RP. Too bad he doesn't have any big recognition.
I like Gary Johnson better than anyone running. Now I have a conundrum. I usually vote Libertarian, and now I have pretty much my ideal candidate. On the other hand, I like Romney, and I voted for him in the primary. Can I ethically vote for a primary candidate and then not vote for him in the general?
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:12 AM   #94
schneiderguy
Lifer
 
schneiderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 6'1" above California, U.S.A. Earth
Posts: 10,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraxas View Post
Why Schneider, I had no idea you wrote historical fiction! That's wonderful. Just a couple brief editorial notes though to aid you in getting published.

First, you might want to talk less about Europe as though it hasn't changed since the American Revolution. Off the top of my head, for instance, Europe of the era was still largely controlled by monarchs, whereas by the period leftists were looking to Europe for inspiration, was more democratic than the US in a lot of ways.

Also, you might want to drop the references to Europe collapsing from welfare states too. The Scandinavian countries have some of the most extensive welfare systems in Europe as well as some of the strongest economies. No, what economists will tell you is that the housing bubble burst and Europe had a lot less room to maneuver than the US not being the reserve currency of the rest of the world, plus they had the same rampant speculation that the US suffered from. Making things even worse, they tried to correct it with austerity measures, which is kind of like trying to make your car go further by draining more gas out of the tank which is why Britain is collapsing. A compelling narrative depends on realism and when you say things like the massive failure of Europe, it just isn't there.

Also, details drive the story, instead of just flat out claiming the founding fathers wanted a Libertarian utopia devoid of strong government you can fall back on the compelling conflicts that formed the heart of the creation of early America, with the Federalists, who were very much for a strong central government such as Hamilton, Adams, Franklin, and to a lesser extent George Washington himself. It was the clash between these people and those who would become then Anti-Federalists like Jefferson and Madison that would create a constitution designed to be flexible and a compromise between the two positions.

Also, you might want to spend more time on how the US came to be a dominant power, for example, having enormous amounts of untapped land that could be easily conquered to the west where Europe was pretty crowded with multiple competing powers already, relatively little military conflict, neither world war being fought largely on US soil. Also, the use of slavery, which reminds me, you might want to step back a bit on acting like everything the founding fathers did was magical and right; with the exception of Franklin none of them were abolitionists and even he owned slaves. Also, they used near slavery conditions to build things like the railroads and to work the mines that enabled rapid development which can hardly be reconciled with the idea of libertarian free association but took place during the period in which we were perhaps closest to the no government regulation model espoused by Ron Paul. Further, when the US really came into power was after WWII which was the result of all our competition being bombed into dust and a massive government hand out in the GI Bill.

On second thought, maybe you should start over. I know, do Transylvania next time, vampires are in right now.
Typical, nit pick at the minor details and ignore the main argument.

The US became the most successful country on Earth because of its libertarian principals.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerD View Post
"Retard" isn't a strong enough word for schneiderguy's level of retardation.
schneiderguy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:18 AM   #95
schneiderguy
Lifer
 
schneiderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 6'1" above California, U.S.A. Earth
Posts: 10,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sMiLeYz View Post
This is the most eloquently written and witty intellectual beat down I have ever read.
Intellectual beat down? It was barely worth responding to.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerD View Post
"Retard" isn't a strong enough word for schneiderguy's level of retardation.
schneiderguy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 03:15 AM   #96
Abraxas
Golden Member
 
Abraxas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schneiderguy View Post
Typical, nit pick at the minor details and ignore the main argument.
No, what you are doing is ignoring everything that was said. Nit picking would involve actually replying to what I typed out in some meaningful fashion.
Quote:
The US became the most successful country on Earth because of its libertarian principals.

As pointed out in the post you ignored, the most libertarian portions of our nations history were some of the darkest, involving abominable work conditions amounting to virtual or actual slavery, unsafe work conditions, and it wasn't until all of our competition was wiped out in two world wars and a massive government handout to almost every young adult male alive in America for training in college, vocational schools, and seminaries (the GI Bill) that America became the most successful nation on Earth.

Further, you distorted just how Libertarian the founding fathers were and distorted how Europe is and distorted what other factors led to the US being the power it became. But fine, let's have it your way.

The history of the US is one of Libertarianism, through and through. Taking your logic to the logical conclusion, we can assume the following:

Libertarianism supports the genocide of a whole race and multiple nations of people for their land, this was, after all, a policy pursued by the founding fathers and a dominant reason for the US becoming a major power. Libertarianism must also support slavery, after all it was the North Atlantic slave trade that allowed cheap agriculture to make cotton, tobacco, and other crops competitive globally and built the wealth of America for the first century. Libertarianism must also support child labor and wage slavery, brutal work conditions and the use of indentured servants as these were all critical to building the infrastructure, and early energy system of America; mines and railroads. Libertarianism also must have supported the multiple military incursions into the western hemisphere in the name of big businesses such as Mexico for the benefit of Tampaco and Nicaragua for the Brown Brothers during the Banana Wars.

I hope my point is made, the history of the US is a very long one, and the rise to power was a very complicated process that involved a lot of brutality by the government and a lot of brutality by private citizens. It involved a lot of morally questionable actions and a lot of morally wrong ones. It involved enormous levels of abuse and misery heaped upon the laborers of America, both free and slave. If you want to put on the nostalgia glasses and act like we built our castle out of sugarplums and puppies, be my guest, but if you want to say it was Libertarianism that built America into a power you are going to have to acknowledge it comes with just as much black as it does rose tint. Otherwise you can drop the pretense right now and just accept it wasn't Libertarianism that built America to begin with.
__________________
"Politics is weird. And creepy. And now I know lacks even the loosest attachment to anything like reality."
Abraxas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 12:53 PM   #97
First
Diamond Member
 
First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,003
Default

Ron Paul, his supporters and his ideas have been thoroughly debunked here before. See below:


February 23, 1981: Ron Paul - Five Myths About the Gold Standard:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=841

“Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear before your subcommittee this morning to discuss the feasibility of establishing a gold standard.

As you know, I have introduced, and other members have cosponsored, H.R. 7874, which is a comprehensive bill to place the United States on a full gold coin standard within two years of the date of its passage.

I believe such a standard to be not only desirable and feasible, but absolutely necessary if we aim to avoid the very real possibility of hyperinflation in the near future, and economic collapse. But in Washington today we have five myths about the gold standard.”

November 16, 2009: Ron Paul - Be Prepared for the Worst: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/11...n-my-mind.html

“What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years.

As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.

The only remaining option is to have the Fed create new money out of thin air. This is inflation. Higher prices lead to a devalued dollar and a lower standard of living for Americans. The Fed has already overseen a 95% loss in the dollar's purchasing power since 1913. If we do not stop this profligate spending soon, we risk hyperinflation and seeing a 95% devaluation every year.”

Source: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2051145

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/20...lease-question - Paul won’t release tax returns
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...=al_politics_p - …people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day. “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane...federate-flag/ - Ron Paul says South was right about Civil War in front of big Confederate flag, video here and here.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane...land-invasion/ - implicated with many KKK, white supremacist, Stormfront, etc.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron...nth-amendment/ - Paul does not support 14th Amendment
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539: - HOR bill sponsored by Paul (and others) trying to get anti-14th Amendment into law.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html - Paul denies incorporation doctrine of 14th amendment
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...well_files.cfm
http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/rac...-lew-rockwell/
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/ol...d-for-over-a-d - 1996 interview where he takes ownership of his words, flipped in 2008.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane...etters-on-cnn/ - CNN interview where he gets grilled about newsletters, equivocates on whether he would look for these 6-8 people.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...t-newsletters/ - Paul gets testy about newsletters
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...the-ron-p-4vfo - takes ownership of newsletters in 1995 video BUSTED
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/...-birch-society - New World Order stuff, Ron Paul sounding like his newsletters
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...ommission.html - Ron Paul on the Trilateral Commission secretly running country, Ron Paul sounding like his newsletters (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/P...1481/stop/1621)


WRONG. Wrong. Wrong as fuck.

Dude's a joke. Get over it.
__________________
Policy Failures, Summarized: Economics: Austerity, HyperInflation. Social Issues: Gay Marriage
First is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:23 PM   #98
Anarchist420
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by werepossum View Post
I also find it very strange that you rip on Anarchist for being a loser who "sucks off his parents all of the way through, and likely past, college" yet you embrace a political party and philosophy dedicated to ensuring that as many people as possible "suck off" of strangers.
Thanks He should note that I'll get a job when I really want one. I do work around the house to partially offset what I take. I consume a lot less than I used to.
__________________
If thomas Jefferson = 2, then A Jackson = 1; A Hamilton A Hitler and A Lincoln = -1; WWilson neocons = -2
Anarchist420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:27 PM   #99
eskimospy
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 33,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchist420 View Post
Thanks He should note that I'll get a job when I really want one. I do work around the house to partially offset what I take. I consume a lot less than I used to.
So you could work but are purposefully electing not to? Your parents are not doing you any favors.
eskimospy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 02:53 PM   #100
First
Diamond Member
 
First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchist420 View Post
Thanks He should note that I'll get a job when I really want one. I do work around the house to partially offset what I take. I consume a lot less than I used to.
Sad.
__________________
Policy Failures, Summarized: Economics: Austerity, HyperInflation. Social Issues: Gay Marriage
First is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.