Why CAN'T Ron Paul be President?

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Thursday, March 26, 2009 18:35
VIEWED: 15149
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 3:49 PM

I'm curious as to peoples arguments against him.

So, please. Tell me why he shouldn't be President.

I would LIKE him to be President, mind.

However, I'll start.

1. He can't get traction because he tends to bring out too much of the fringe element. While some are good, they tend to flavor his campaign with too much "noise".

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 4:00 PM

He comes across as a total flake, and his positions on defense are frightening, that's why.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 4:40 PM

In all honesty, even though I agree with 90% of his political philosophy, there are several reasons - some of them good ones.

But the biggest reasons aren't good ones. First of all, people simply don't want what he's selling. Limited government makes sense to those of us who place high value on personal freedom, but to most folks it just sounds scary. Our nation is pretty firmly entrenched in the 'caretaker state' mentality, and people are accustomed to the idea that the government is there to take care of them.

Second, most Democrats and Republicans don't see government the way the founding fathers did. Rather than seeing the government's role as primarily that of protecting liberty, they see government as a way to get one over on the other guy. To them, the power of law is a tool to make other people comply with their idea of "the good life". They have a clear vision of how other people ought to behave and freedom gets in the way of that vision.

As for the good reasons, the biggest has to do with his personality. He's a libertarian to the core, even in making decisions about his own campaign. His leadership style reflects his laissez-faire mentality and, while I'd love to see more of that attitude in the White House, its not necessarily the best trait for a chief executive.

The other factor working against him is that the presidency is about much more than policy and decision making. There's a significant figurehead aspect to the office and a good president needs to inspire a broad range of people. Ron Paul's exchanges with Rudy Guiliani in the primaries illustrated this well. To the people listening closely to the arguments presented, Ron Paul made Giuliani look like a moron. But most people saw it exactly the opposite. They were listening to tone of voice, attitude, presentation, (demagoguery?) and to them Rudy scored major points in those exchanges. Ironically, they both did, but with completely different audiences.

The point is Ron Paul doesn't "inspire confidence" in most people, and his speaking style doesn't project clarity and strength, even if his ideas do. Image matters. That's why so many people like Obama, even when they disagree with his policies (myself included).

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ELVISCHRIST

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:07 PM

Because he's three billion years old, and the GOP doesn't believe that ANYTHING on Earth is older than 6000 years!

Don't tell me that my ship is coming in...
Time's running out the door you're running in.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:17 PM

Very well written Sergent. I agree with you completely on what you said concerning his "image".

KELKHIL

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:18 PM

<.<

>.>

<.<

Cuz he wasn't elected. Seems kinda obvious

Zombie Killing, Ninja in Training Kelkhil
The Shirtless Forsaken

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:29 PM

Doesnt mean he won't be in the future.

Remember who you are dealing with on this site.

BrownCoats = Diehards.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kelkhil:
<.<

>.>

<.<

Cuz he wasn't elected. Seems kinda obvious

Heh.... yeah, they're pretty strict about that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

HERO

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I'm curious as to peoples arguments against him.

So, please. Tell me why he shouldn't be President.

The main reason is because he can't get elected.

If it wasn't for the part were more people vote for him then the other fella in a majority of the states...he probably could be President.

So really its the Constitution thats his biggest problem.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

ELVISCHRIST

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:27 PM

Quote:

If it wasn't for the part were more people vote for him then the other fella in a majority of the states...he probably could be President.

Psshh - details. That's not really an obstacle, you know.

Don't tell me that my ship is coming in...
Time's running out the door you're running in.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:33 PM

Ahhh, everybodys got jokes...

But really, Im looking for reasons from the peanut gallery as to why he wouldnt be a good president.

RUE

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:42 PM

Wulf

There's a joke - It shows a knight charging on horseback, way waaaay ahead of the other knights in the charge, with the thought balloon over his head that says - - - I'm fucked.

Now imagine where those other knights would be if the guy in front was saying - you guys are jokes ! You're cowards. You're stupid ! You don't know what's good for you ! Only I know !

Do you think those other knights would even BE in the background ?

The problem with calling the 98% of people who don't agree with you names as your main rallying call is that it's not going to win the argument or get you any allies.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WASHNWEAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
... The point is Ron Paul doesn't "inspire confidence" in most people, and his speaking style doesn't project clarity and strength, even if his ideas do. Image matters.

Sad but true. I saw him for the first time on The Daily Show a while back, and I did not exactly feel like I was being bathed in charisma.

If you could combine his policies and principles with Obama's eloquence and charm...why, I wouldn't-a just voted for him - I'd have mated with him!

It was like that when we got here!

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:51 PM

Sergeant for President!

I think the problem is way deeper than image. I believe even if Obama himself were libertarian, he couldn't get elected.

There is some type of Political Law: A political institution, once created, cannot be made smaller or destroyed without a bloody revolution.

(This does not necessarily mean violence on the part of the rebels; even Gandhi's revolution was bloody.)

Thus, a peaceful election process will never be able to make government smaller. It seems like if everyone voted to make it so, it could theoretically happen.

But the people in power would make sure that everyone would not or could not vote to make it so. They put up obstacles in propaganda, election laws, political education of the youth, etc. If libertarian ideas ever get close to popular, there would arise major smear campaigns etc.

It ain't gonna happen in this country.

That's me, the cynic.

--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:13 PM

Dammit, Im a dreamer.

I BELIEVE in the power of the people.

I BELIEVE that people are inherently good, and can rule themselves.

So WHY does everyone disagree with me?

KWICKO

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Dammit, Im a dreamer.

I BELIEVE in the power of the people.

I BELIEVE that people are inherently good, and can rule themselves.

So WHY does everyone disagree with me?

Because they live in THIS world, where even the defacto leader of the GOP has stated publicly and repeatedly that he wants the President to fail, and the economy to thus collapse, taking America down with it.

THAT is why you're a dreamer - because you refuse to accept the reality that is all around you.

Mike

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned, they've summoned up
a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.

- Anthem, by Leonard Cohen

RUE

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:22 PM

"I BELIEVE in the power of the people."

As long as they agree with you.

"I BELIEVE that people are inherently good, and can rule themselves."

As long as they do what you want.

"So WHY does everyone disagree with me?"

Because they don't share your views of what they should think and how they should live ?

***************************************************************

Really, Wulf. You don't want people to rule themselves. You want to rule them.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Dammit, Im a dreamer.

I BELIEVE in the power of the people.

I BELIEVE that people are inherently good, and can rule themselves.

So WHY does everyone disagree with me?

I don't disagree with you.

I believe in the power of the people, that they are inherently good, and can rule themselves.

I just don't think they will be *allowed* to rule themselves by those who have the power now. Not without a bloody revolution.

I disagree that the kind of massive paradigm change advocated by Ron Paul can happen in a peaceful election process.

You are talking about a mass awakening, a mass philosophical revolution in what is understood and expected of government. That isn't going to happen without violence and major suffering.

Again, I emphasize that the violence I speak of is not necessarily an armed struggle. It could very well be government turning violent on the average citizen. It has to be something drastic and disastrous that shakes the comfortable complacency of the status quo for the people to WANT to take power into their own hands again, instead of letting "government" keep the power.

--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke

HERO

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I BELIEVE in the power of the people."

As long as they agree with you.

"I BELIEVE that people are inherently good, and can rule themselves."

As long as they do what you want.

I believe I'll have a drink.

I don't believe in Ron Paul...he's like a Congressional Easter Bunny. Sure, I've seen him on TV and the internet...but have you ever seen him in real life?

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is an imaginary character played by British Actor Ian McKellen.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

RUE

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:32 PM

Person who really thinks people can rule themselves:
1) Say, what do you all think we should do ?
2) What you want to do is OK with me.

Person who only pretends people can rule themselves:
1) I won't LET people do things I disagree with !
2) Why don't you agree with me and do what I want ?
3) You're all sheeple !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:34 PM

Rue: Stop it.

People CAN rule themselves. Even if I disagree with what they decide to do.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:36 PM

He's got some great ideas, and then he goes all crazy Ivan on other issues, like national defense. It's quite upsetting, to be honest, to hear him have it so dead on accurate about the US Constitution on some matters, and then close his eyes on the reality of today on other matters.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:36 PM

"I don't believe in Ron Paul...he's like a Congressional Easter Bunny. Sure, I've seen him on TV and the internet...but have you ever seen him in real life?

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is an imaginary character played by British Actor Ian McKellen."

Ahhh, Snarky McSnark...if you've read my posts, you know I've met the man....hes no imaginary character.

RUE

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:41 PM

"People CAN rule themselves. Even if I disagree with what they decide to do."

Brought to you by the person who hates democracy.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WASHNWEAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I don't believe in Ron Paul...he's like a Congressional Easter Bunny. Sure, I've seen him on TV and the internet...but have you ever seen him in real life?

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is an imaginary character played by British Actor Ian McKellen."

Ahhh, Snarky McSnark...if you've read my posts, you know I've met the man....hes no imaginary character.

And, at the risk of insulting Ron Paul, I believe you (Hero) just insulted Ian McKellen. Or maybe you praised him...but dammit, McKellen could never downplay a performance that much!

It was like that when we got here!

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:45 PM

Democracy? You mean this past election?

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Obama won using the same techniques Hitler did. Propaganda mixed with charisma.

Good times.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"People CAN rule themselves. Even if I disagree with what they decide to do."

Brought to you by the person who hates democracy.

rue, are you trying to make a point?

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:48 PM

Wulf, ponder this - our system is set up, quite deliberately, to PREVENT people like him from getting into office, ok ?

Suppose, say 56% of the public voted for him, but only 6% of the electoral college did.
(read some history, shit like this DID happen)

That's WHY IT'S THERE, to ensure that the whole pesky will of the people thing wouldn't get in the way of Madison, Hamilton, and the other Federalists neo-feudal agenda.

Cause, yanno, americans are too stupid to make decisions for themselves, right ?

That's why if you want it done, you gotta start small, hit them at the low levels and work towards putting delegates in place, giving the guy at least a leg to stand on, yes ?

As it stands now, the whole things a sham, the nominees are hand-picked by party machines not a dimes worth different from each other, and when you vote, your state "selects" an elector, who then votes for whichever party has put the most money in their pocket regardless of what YOU voted for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

As long as the party machine has control of the electors, who is "appointed" and how, your vote is meaningless, dude - it's all a shell game cause in between you and the tally, there's some hired hack tossing your vote and pulling the lever he's been paid to pull.

And in practice it's a damn secretive, closed process which amounts to a whole bunch of party-appointed hacks laughing to themselves in a back room over the gullibility of the public, since they knew over a year in advance how things are gonna go.
(Seriously, where do you think *I* get that information so early and accurately ?)

And that doesn't even scratch the surface, when you include stuff like gerrymandering and the like, which you need to get your OWN people into those offices to at least counter, you understand ?

Funny coda to that...
Despite being run out of town on a rail by em, some of the folks from my previous hometown have started collecting signatures to put me on the ballot as a State legislator, it's like they can't make up their minds - or maybe they're just pissed enough at the current state of affairs to send an attack dog up the line, I dunno.

Ain't gonna work, but it'll damn sure make some folk nervous, and I think that's the real point to it, myself, so I'll play along... for now.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RUE

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 7:54 PM

Wulf: People CAN rule themselves. Even if I disagree with what they decide to do.

Rue: Brought to you by the person who hates democracy.

Wulf: rue, are you trying to make a point?

Why, yes I am ! Thank you very much for asking ! You've posted that you don't like democracy - that you think it's a way to get a bad result because people are too stupid to know what's good for them. You've also posted that you WON'T LET PEOPLE do what you disagree with. That's my point.

You really, truly do not think people can rule themselves. Unless, of course, they do what you want.

***************************************************************

So the answer to why CAN'T Ron Paul be president ?
Because the people have decided for themselves they don't want him.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Wulf: People CAN rule themselves. Even if I disagree with what they decide to do.

Rue: Brought to you by the person who hates democracy.

Wulf: rue, are you trying to make a point?

rue, that was me asking if you were trying to make a point, and I have to say, I'm not sure what it is. Where has Wulf said he won't let people do things he disagrees with?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:20 PM

Because people really do want a government that takes care of them, and they're willing to give up a fair bit of freedom for predictability and an easier life. That's the drive towards "More reward. Less punshiment". That seems to be one of the cornerstones of "human nature". Part of the "self-domesticating" process which Frem fears.

There is a fair bit of frustrated Why don't they just do what I want????? in this thread - especially from Wulf- but altho this site attracts a higher-than-average percentage of libertarians, in fact libertarians represent only a small fraction of the population.

And if you want to reverse the process, you can't just replace something with nothing, because otherwise you'll get chaos and then tyranny. (How many revolutions would up that way, when peeps got fed up with chaos?) You won't reach libertarianism by successive deletion/ elimination, but by construction of a viable alternative which offers everything that the current system offers... and more.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:23 PM

Quote:
rue, that was me asking if you were trying to make a point, and I have to say, I'm not sure what it is. Where has Wulf said he won't let people do things he disagrees with?

Signy here... In many of his posts. I'll see if I can find a link, because he said EXACTLY that.

But his disdain for those who disagree with him, and his frustration in not being able to get what he wants shines thought in every post.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:47 PM

So what, he's welcome to bitch all he wants, that's free speech, innit ?

If being bitched at was the only thing I had to fear from a governments administration, it would damn sure be an improvement!

-F

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because people really do want a government that takes care of them, and they're willing to give up a fair bit of freedom for predictability and an easier life.

SargeantX said: Our nation is pretty firmly entrenched in the 'caretaker state' mentality, and people are accustomed to the idea that the government is there to take care of them.

Please enlighten - I keep hearing this from people ("everyone wants to be taken care of by the Gov") but I don't know a single person that wants this. Who are these people? Are you talking about infrastructure, healthcare, and social sercurity? People want to do those themseles? Where do you draw the line?

Ron Paul not being president - if the gopnics think it can use "Socialist" as a word bomb, then how far you think a "Libertarian" is going to get?

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:09 PM

I just want to be free to go my own way.

Nothing more. And, GODDAMMIT, NOTHING LESS.

But today, in my home, in my country, I CAN'T.

This life is NOT what was intended! THIS is not what was meant to be. Call me naive, but I BELIEVE in personal FREEDOM.

I BELIEVE in being able to think, speak, and work how I WANT to. I am NOT a SLAVE.

Which is what the government wants of us.

And it amazes me that so many get on the victory march for the current administration. As if ANYTHING has changed.

Ron Paul has held to his beliefs, held the line, held to the truest sense of the Constitution.

And yet, you've got people

EVEN HERE,

who would argue against those freedoms.

Tell me why.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:39 PM

Fear.

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:56 PM

He's a US citizen.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Please enlighten - I keep hearing this from people ("everyone wants to be taken care of by the Gov") but I don't know a single person that wants this. Who are these people? Are you talking about infrastructure, healthcare, and social sercurity?

Yes, those, among other things. Most of the people I know want state involvement in everyday life. They expect the government to take care of their children while they are at work, to decide what's good to eat, what medicines they can take, how they can make a living, essentially how to live life. They are uncomfortable with the idea of making decisions for themselves and, apparently through some form of projection, seek to prevent others from doing so as well. They want to be told what to think and what to believe. They want to free themselves from as much responsibility as possible and avoid the repercussions of their mistakes. They want to stumble through life as ignorant children, secure in the notion that the government will protect them from all risk.

Yes, that's hyperbole, but not by much. Freedom requires a population that's able, and more importantly willing, to think for themselves. We've lost that. And I fear CTS is right, we won't get it back easily.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 11:18 PM

Quote:
Please enlighten - I keep hearing this from people ("everyone wants to be taken care of by the Gov") but I don't know a single person that wants this. Who are these people? Are you talking about infrastructure, healthcare, and social security?

Yes, yes, and yes. Sewer lines and sewage treatment plants. Unemployment benefits. Cleaner environment. Safer foods and medicines and cars. Deposit insurance. Paid time off. Traffic lights. The internet. Flood control. Stuff that would be too costly and not generate enough revenue (or ANY revenue) and therefore not be of interest to business.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 11:22 PM

The inherent flaw of libertarianism is that libertarians believe that people have the right to make ANY choice... except the choice of wanting government in their lives.

Quote:
They are uncomfortable with the idea of making decisions for themselves and, apparently through some form of projection, seek to prevent others from doing so as well. They want to be told what to think and what to believe.

Which you, and Wulf, and Frem, are busy doing... telling people what they SHOULD think and believe.

And therefore it is inadmissible... anathema... that people might WANT to get together and tackle their problems collectively, to provide for themselves the services that business has no interest in fucking them over for because there's so little profit in it. God forbid that should happen!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, March 4, 2009 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The inherent flaw of libertarianism is that libertarians believe that people have the right to make ANY choice... except the choice of wanting government in their lives.

Oh, well if all you're talking about is people deciding for themselves whether they want the government running their lives, we've got no problem with that.

But of course you're being coy here. What you really mean is that they want the "choice" to insist on the government running other people's lives as well. I have no desire to interfere with your desire to be taken care of. Have at it. All I ask is that you return the favor and stay out of my decision to decline such a "service".

Quote:
... you, and Wulf, and Frem, are busy doing... telling people what they SHOULD think and believe.

Not so much. See above.

Quote:
And therefore it is inadmissible... anathema... that people might WANT to get together and tackle their problems collectively, to provide for themselves the services that business has no interest in fucking them over for because there's so little profit in it. God forbid that should happen!

You know this isn't so, yet you keep repeating it. I've stated on numerous occasions (as have Frem, CTS, et. al.) that I'm very enthusiastic about getting together and solving problems collectively. What I'm opposed to is forcing such solutions on people who might not want them. Isn't that what you're really talking about?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Democracy? You mean this past election?

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Obama won using the same techniques Hitler did. Propaganda mixed with charisma.

Good times.

But did he WIN the election?

And this is the exact point Rue was making - you're all for democracy, except when it doesn't go your way. Then it's obviously a fraud.

KWICKO

Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I don't believe in Ron Paul...he's like a Congressional Easter Bunny. Sure, I've seen him on TV and the internet...but have you ever seen him in real life?

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is an imaginary character played by British Actor Ian McKellen."

Ahhh, Snarky McSnark...if you've read my posts, you know I've met the man....hes no imaginary character.

But as far as *I* know, YOU'RE an imaginary character!

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Please enlighten - I keep hearing this from people ("everyone wants to be taken care of by the Gov") but I don't know a single person that wants this. Who are these people? Are you talking about infrastructure, healthcare, and social security?
Yes, yes, and yes. Sewer lines and sewage treatment plants. Unemployment benefits. Cleaner environment. Safer foods and medicines and cars. Deposit insurance. Paid time off. Traffic lights. The internet. Flood control. Stuff that would be too costly and not generate enough revenue (or ANY revenue) and therefore not be of interest to business.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

You want these things to be replaced by non-gov/private groups? Or...?

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Please enlighten - I keep hearing this from people ("everyone wants to be taken care of by the Gov") but I don't know a single person that wants this. Who are these people? Are you talking about infrastructure, healthcare, and social sercurity?

Yes, those, among other things. Most of the people I know want state involvement in everyday life. They expect the government to take care of their children while they are at work, to decide what's good to eat, what medicines they can take, how they can make a living, essentially how to live life. They are uncomfortable with the idea of making decisions for themselves and, apparently through some form of projection, seek to prevent others from doing so as well. They want to be told what to think and what to believe. They want to free themselves from as much responsibility as possible and avoid the repercussions of their mistakes. They want to stumble through life as ignorant children, secure in the notion that the government will protect them from all risk.

Where the hell do you live?? Everyone I know, from the wealthiest to the poorest want Uncle Sam to do his deal, but keep the hell off my front yard. They *DO* want some stuff for their taxes though - we paid for it let's have it. Like roads and health care... take fiddy off the top for guns and ammo, then what else we paying for?

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 5, 2009 12:18 AM

Quote:
All I ask is that you return the favor and stay out of my decision to decline such a "service".

Again, how does an individual absent themselves from the collective good?

There are SOME services you can opt out of... healthcare, for example. There are SOME services that can be billed on a per-use basis- for example, taxing vehicle fuels to pay for roadwork. But how do YOU exempt yourself from being able to breathe cleaner air because somebody else paid to put a boot up industry's *ss? How do YOU exempt yourself from a high-tech living standard because somebody else decided that all qualified children should have a shot at higher education? How do YOU exempt yourself from the freedom from being aggressively panhandled because somebody else paid for psychiatrict treatment for PTSD vets? Or exempt yourself from the safety of your national borders because somebody else paid for a defense force?

Realistically, it's like Rapo wanting risk-free capitalism, or wishing for a freezing-hot day. Realistically, the only way for you to exempt yourself from both the benefits and the costs of living in a system you don't like is to isolate yourself within it so thoroughy that you have NO contact with it whatsover, or leave it. I don't see any other way, do you? And the answer is: YOU DON'T. You disguise your argument as simply wanting to be "left alone", but know that society (and economics) isn't like a smorgasboard, that it's too interconnected to pick and choose, your only proposal is to change society. And that's why you're so frustrated: Because most peeps don't want to change just to meet your expectations. They have other goals in mind.

Quote:
then what else we paying for?

Cough syrup and toothpaste that's not contaminated with anti-freeze, and milk not contaminated with melamine. Air that's fit to breathe. Water that's fit to drink. The assurance that widespread epidemics of polio will not sweep the nation. I can think of LOTS of things that most peeps take for granted.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, March 5, 2009 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are SOME services you can opt out of... healthcare, for example. There are SOME services that can be billed on a per-use basis- for example, taxing vehicle fuels to pay for roadwork. But how do YOU exempt yourself from being able to breathe cleaner air because somebody else paid to put a boot up industry's *ss?

You can't. And that's why I'm not an outright anarchist. I'm just saying, as I've explained probably twenty or thirty times on here, that we should only resort to "majority rule" in situations where the goals are critical, consensus is very high, or the imposition very minor compared to the benefit. Clean air is one those kinds of issues. Military another.

What I'm opposed to is being coerced into participating in a program that I don't like, merely because someone convinced the majority that it's a nifty idea. It's the concept of unlimited democracy that I'm opposed to. The balance struck with the creation of US was a respect for the desires of the majority (on matters you can't "opt out of", as you pointed out), with sharp limitations on the majority's ability to lord it over the minority.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 5, 2009 1:09 AM

Quote:
consensus is very high

Well, consensus is very high, just not in your favor. And opting out is not an option.

So, what are you going to do about it?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, March 5, 2009 1:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
consensus is very high
Well, consensus is very high, just not in your favor. And opting out is not an option.

So, what are you going to do about it?

It depends on how high the consensus is, and how much the decision imposes on those who disagree.

Unless the decision is particularly egregious, I'd just buck up and deal with it. If the decision is intolerable, I guess I'd either leave the country or go underground.

To be clear, when I say the "consensus is very high", I'm talking 95% plus. A good example would be public education. I'm opposed to it, but I'm not willing to incite rebellion over it.

On the other hand, even if 99.9% of the population decided that atheists are subhuman and should be treated as slaves, I'd raise hell (so to speak,

).

The thing is, the constitution is there to protect us from such misuses of democracy. That's why some of us are so adamant about following its limitations strictly.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 5, 2009 2:07 AM

It seems that the problem is that libertarians can't agree to agree and others can't agree to disagree. And you can't get any disagreement more unresolveable than that!

So perhaps the best approach is a more specific one: looking at either the practical outcomes/ aspects of either approach, or looking at specific programs and deciding whether they fall into the "agree" box or the "disagree" box, and if there is significant disagreement whether the programs can be constructed in an "opt out" way. A third option is to propose a different sytem altogether. As I've said before, I don't think you'll get many people to buy into a deconstructive approach. Perhaps there needs to be a constructive alternative.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 5, 2009 9:17 AM

Quote:
Which you, and Wulf, and Frem, are busy doing... telling people what they SHOULD think and believe.

Seriously, where the hell did you get that idea, when I quite often feel the pressing need to mention that I require no one's agreement while I state a personal opinion ?

What I do NOT care for, is having someone elses morals, and frankly (see also: blue laws) someone elses RELIGION, crammed down my throat on a gun barrel by the State.

Quote:
And therefore it is inadmissible... anathema... that people might WANT to get together and tackle their problems collectively, to provide for themselves the services that business has no interest in fucking them over for because there's so little profit in it. God forbid that should happen!

Ok, now you're into might be a good idea to apologise territory.

You DO know imma Kropotkinist, yes ?

I mean, I've only mentioned it fifty times and more, and such above is the BASIS of Kropotkinism, called Mutual Aid!

Once again, you've taking to filing all that disagree with you into a category, and flaming them for positions they may or may not hold as invididuals, cause for a fact I am *not* a Capitalist, and personally lean towards a mutual contract system of doing business with actual hardline enforcement behind it.

And, as I have repeatedly stated, I got no problem with payin for infrastructure cause it's one of the things both well worth the price, and a handy provider of employment for the community it services, which is an additional incentive to do the job well.

I am NOT a category, I am an individual, and if you are unwilling to debate me as such, then don't bother doing it at all, capisce ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CITIZEN

Thursday, March 5, 2009 3:47 PM

Quote:
Obama won using the same techniques Hitler did. Propaganda mixed with charisma.

Obama burnt down the Senate House, and forced Bush to hand him power under emergency anti-terrorism powers without an elected majority for his party?

I thought he was elected.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:09 PM

Ron Paul, or anyone true to his beliefs, couldn't get in the seat EVER for the same reason that we'll never see another season of Firefly.

There is simply too many people in positions of power (ie: the ability to give yourself raises that at very worst match inflation on a year to year basis) that have grown accustomed to running the show the way they see fit and Dr. Paul's message of freedom and personal responsibility are a stark contrast to what they desire. (Might I add that he has a track record of always voting against a raise)

It's funny that Firefly's initial run placed the episodes out of the order they were meant to be seen in by some suits at FuX, isn't it?

It's funny how Dr. Paul's message was turned inside out by pundits on either side of the Power Elite spectrum the last two years...

It's funny that I never even heard of Firefly until 3 years after it came out, and still didn't watch it for another year or more at least before giving it a shot, isn't it?

And by then..... it was too late.

Do I even need to mention what we have now and what could have been with Dr. Paul, or the fact that even when I speak of him today that only a handful of people don't ask me who I'm talking about?

It's too late...

There will be a change alright. But certainly not what was sold to us.

From the bottom of my heart, I hope you are all faring as well as I have been. True... I'm going broke in the market, but I still have a job and a roof over my head for the time being. I'm just glad I'm not even 30 yet and have a lot of avenues available to me yet. I know the same can't be said for many of us who may be hurting.

It's been a long time since I've been here, and honestly with a majority of the people in the world acting and thinking like I've been for the last 6 or so years in the REAL real world, I can't say I miss it all that much.

Here's hoping you're not all still scratching each other's eyes out and maybe starting to realize that neither "side" is right, and there is many more than two ways to skin a cat.... or something like that.....

We the People....

And if we aren't, then let me be the first to welcome 1984, albeit just a tad tardy.

I love Big Brother....

In the Biblical sense

Peace & Love.... We'll Rise Above

~6SJ

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SERGEANTX

Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Obama burnt down the Senate House, and forced Bush to hand him power under emergency anti-terrorism powers without an elected majority for his party?

Well, duh. But of course it wasn't covered in the mainstream media!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:16 PM

"So what, he's welcome to bitch all he wants, that's free speech, innit ?"

He asked a question "Why CAN'T Ron Paul be President?" I was trying to provide an answer - because in this version of self-governance, almost everybody * doesn't want Ron Paul.

Now, if Wulf really IS for self-governance, he should either be OK with the result, or be working to change people's minds through reason and logic. Calling people names b/c they don't agree with you is not a way to win their support and get the result you want.

Aside from that, Wulf has repeatedly and routinely bitched in such a way as to demonstrate his hostility to self governance. And that is why I question his sincerity on the issue.

*Back of the envelope calculation: 100% - (8% of repubicans * 35% people who identify as repubicans) = 99% percentage of people who don't want Ron Raul as president.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:41 PM

"Yes, those, among other things. Most of the people I know want state involvement in everyday life. They expect the government to take care of their children while they are at work, to decide what's good to eat, what medicines they can take, how they can make a living, essentially how to live life. They are uncomfortable with the idea of making decisions for themselves and, apparently through some form of projection, seek to prevent others from doing so as well. They want to be told what to think and what to believe. They want to free themselves from as much responsibility as possible and avoid the repercussions of their mistakes. They want to stumble through life as ignorant children, secure in the notion that the government will protect them from all risk.

Yes, that's hyperbole, but not by much. Freedom requires a population that's able, and more importantly willing, to think for themselves. We've lost that. And I fear CTS is right, we won't get it back easily."

Here, SergeantX just demonstrated the same kind of arrogance and elitism that drives him, Wulf, 6-String, CTS and a few others - when people DO think, but in ways they disagree with, they demean 99% of human beings as unthinking stupid sheeple they're relucantly forced to share the planet with.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Here, SergeantX just demonstrated the same kind of arrogance and elitism that drives him, Wulf, 6-String, CTS and a few others - when people DO think, but in ways they disagree with, they demean 99% of human beings as unthinking stupid sheeple they're relucantly forced to share the planet with.

Here, rue displays her penchant for engaging in petty, spiteful personal attacks rather than honest debate and discussion. The ad hominem fallacy is a common tool used by demagogues with little else to support their position.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Yes, those, among other things. Most of the people I know want state involvement in everyday life. They expect the government to take care of their children while they are at work, to decide what's good to eat, what medicines they can take, how they can make a living, essentially how to live life. They are uncomfortable with the idea of making decisions for themselves and, apparently through some form of projection, seek to prevent others from doing so as well. They want to be told what to think and what to believe. They want to free themselves from as much responsibility as possible and avoid the repercussions of their mistakes. They want to stumble through life as ignorant children, secure in the notion that the government will protect them from all risk.

Yes, that's hyperbole, but not by much. Freedom requires a population that's able, and more importantly willing, to think for themselves. We've lost that. And I fear CTS is right, we won't get it back easily."

Here, SergeantX just demonstrated the same kind of arrogance and elitism that drives him, Wulf, 6-String, CTS and a few others - when people DO think, but in ways they disagree with, they demean 99% of human beings as unthinking stupid sheeple they're relucantly forced to share the planet with.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

I dunno Rue.... It does sound great when you put it that way.

I know if you had your way I wouldn't be able to smoke anywhere except for in a vaccuum because you feel that it's bad for me and everyone around me. Seems like I'm the one being dictated to by others in that scenario.

I don't smoke at work in the office. I don't want to put people out. I had no problem with having to go to the 4' x 4' heavily ventilated room to have a smoke on my break, until the newer, bigger company bought us out and placed their laws upon us and thrust us out into the -40 degree weather we've experienced in Wisconsin this winter, in this our "global warming" days.

Where is the fairness though Rue? When does it end. We can't smoke at work, we can't smoke at the restaurant or bars, we as business owners can't choose whether or not to allow our patrons to smoke in state-wide bans, and all the while we are the people who are paying a higher tax every single year because the 75% of people who pay taxes that don't smoke would rather not see their property tax or vehicle registration tax raise.

I'm paying for a bunch of illegitimate and/or ill-conceived kids health care (supposedly) with this increase when I don't have any kids. If we had it your way, I'd be reduced to wearing a nicotene patch 24/7 and my brothers future children would be mandated by law to receive autism shots before Kindergarten.

I'm not saying that I act any less "holier than thou" than you do, but take a good look in the mirror. For the years I've known you any post that was more than three words reeked of self righteousness.

I'm betting you only brought up my name because I posted 5 minutes before. You couldn't possibly have had that big a crush on me that you would speak so ill of me like that for the last 4 months or so in my absence.

I hope you're doing well otherwise,
~6SJ

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Thursday, March 5, 2009 5:11 PM

"Here, rue displays her penchant for engaging in petty, spiteful personal attacks ..."

And what was this, Sergeant X ?:

"Yes, those, among other things. Most of the people I know want state involvement in everyday life. They expect the government to take care of their children while they are at work, to decide what's good to eat, what medicines they can take, how they can make a living, essentially how to live life. They are uncomfortable with the idea of making decisions for themselves and, apparently through some form of projection, seek to prevent others from doing so as well. They want to be told what to think and what to believe. They want to free themselves from as much responsibility as possible and avoid the repercussions of their mistakes. They want to stumble through life as ignorant children, secure in the notion that the government will protect them from all risk.

Yes, that's hyperbole, but not by much. Freedom requires a population that's able, and more importantly willing, to think for themselves. We've lost that. And I fear CTS is right, we won't get it back easily."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 5, 2009 5:14 PM

Awesome reply Six.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, March 5, 2009 5:19 PM

"Most of the people I know want state involvement in everyday life. They expect the government to take care of their children while they are at work, to decide what's good to eat, what medicines they can take, how they can make a living, essentially how to live life. They are uncomfortable with the idea of making decisions for themselves and, apparently through some form of projection, seek to prevent others from doing so as well. They want to be told what to think and what to believe. They want to free themselves from as much responsibility as possible and avoid the repercussions of their mistakes. They want to stumble through life as ignorant children, secure in the notion that the government will protect them from all risk."

Rue,

Its only a personal attack if it applys to you.

Which it does.

BURN!

RUE

Thursday, March 5, 2009 5:21 PM

"I know if you had your way I wouldn't be able to smoke anywhere except for in a vaccuum because you feel that it's bad for me and everyone around me."

I don't care what you do to yourself. I really truly do not care. If you think I give the least little thought, you are obviously projecting some kind of ego need to be meaningnful to somebody. If we had tax-supported health-care, I would probably think you should get some kind of reduced benefit since you are obviously engaged in health-destroying behaviors, and using up my tax dollars. But we don't, so whatever ... As for second hand smoke, yes, believe it or not, it IS harmful to those around you. You really shouldn't be allowed to take OTHER peoples' decisions to smoke or not to smoke away from them when you light up nearby.

I personally have my own right-wing ideas about people having children they can't and don't intend to take care of. But that's a topic for another day.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, March 5, 2009 5:25 PM

"Rue,
Its only a personal attack if it applys (sic) to you.
Which it does.
BURN!"

So, to make broad negative statements which are not on topic - ALL LIBERTARIANS ARE SELF-CENTERED JACK-OFFS - is not an attack because there's no name attached to it ? Or it's only an attack if you think it applies to you ? Or if your name is attached to it but you don't think it applies to you it's not an attack ?

Do you have a clue as to what you mean ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, March 5, 2009 5:37 PM

And therein lies the hypocrisy and futility of arguing against an unwindable defense.

How can I argue against that Rue, when I've already agreed with all of those opinions on the other side and still get an argument?

I don't smoke in front of other people, unless they inject them into a situation outside of work or family life where it is expected, at least at a reasonable amount of establishments, to partake in.

Like I said, at work, a 4 x 4 room until the new management came in and nixed it.

If I was living by the lease my new management wanted me to sign, which I didn't sign, I wouldn't be allowed to smoke in my own apartment which I pay $750 a month to live in and have been "Grandfathered" in.

In my Grandma's town, you can't smoke outdoors without risking a ticket now. Where would that put me now if that happened in my town and I signed that lease addendum?

I do want to work on a fair compromise for all parties, regarding when and where it's acceptable and taxwise, but from where I stand I have no choice but to keep getting beat down by the 75% or more majority on the matter.

What would you do with me Master?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SERGEANTX

Thursday, March 5, 2009 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
... broad negative statements which are not on topic...

Exactly. Broad. As in not specific, and not personal. I posted my perception that our society has lost its passion for independence and freedom. Further, I made a point of acknowledging it as hyperbole. Considering the thread title and the track of the discussion, it was precisely on topic.

But rather than post an intelligible response, making your case for why you think I'm wrong, you choose to speculate on what "drives" me and characterize me as "arrogant" and "elitist". Your armchair psychology, accurate or not, adds nothing to the discussion and merely serves to distract from the debate. Is that all you got?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Thursday, March 5, 2009 5:58 PM

"Where is the fairness though Rue? When does it end."

Replying to your FIRST post -

"We can't smoke at work"
We agree on this.

"we can't smoke at the restaurant or bars"
I PRESUME we agree on this, it's hard to say. Other patrons and the workers may not want to breathe your smoke, I would say it's a fair thing to enforce. What do you think ?

"we as business owners can't choose whether or not to allow our patrons to smoke in state-wide bans"
IS there a statewide ban in your state ? Are there statewide bans in other sates that forbid a smokers clubs and bars ? Or is this hyperbole ? It's hard to say.

"and all the while we are the people who are paying a higher tax every single year because the 75% of people who pay taxes that don't smoke would rather not see their property tax or vehicle registration tax raise."
Is this not in contradiction to what people were saying about weed ? Make it legal and then tax the hell out of it ? So, should tobacco be exempt from that approach b/c it's YOUR habit of choice ?

"I'm paying for a bunch of illegitimate and/or ill-conceived kids health care (supposedly) with this increase when I don't have any kids."
Which is why I made my comment about children. But you're ALSO paying for other services which you DO use, so maybe --- you should make a better argument than the Ronald Reagan welfare queen one, which doesn't work all that well in this case.

"If we had it your way, I'd be reduced to wearing a nicotine patch 24/7"
And this IS simply untrue. You can OD on cigarette nicotine as far as I'm concerned. Or on nicotine patches, or on alcohol, or, really anything. As long as you don't harm anyone else in the process, it's all good.

"and my brothers future children would be mandated by law to receive autism shots before Kindergarten."
And THIS is factually untrue, I presume b/c you have your opinions but are again very low on facts.

"I'm not saying that I act any less "holier than thou" than you do, but take a good look in the mirror. For the years I've known you any post that was more than three words reeked of self righteousness."
I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm here to make my comments, state my observations, poke fun, post actual facts that get lost in the hype, and so on. At this point, with this set of people, I prefer the gibing, jeering role of the jester.

"I'm betting you only brought up my name because I posted 5 minutes before. You couldn't possibly have had that big a crush on me that you would speak so ill of me like that for the last 4 months or so in my absence."
There are people whose names I've forgotten, and I think so little of you, you were one of them. So yes, your post reminded me of you.

"I hope you're doing well otherwise,"
Actually, I hope you're doing well otherwise as well. But don't take that as a lifelong commitment on my part to keep your existence and well-being in mind.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:07 PM

Heh... you win Rue, whatever.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't come around here anymore. Maybe we'll talk again in 4 or 5 months.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

OUT2THEBLACK

Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Heh... you win Rue, whatever.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't come around here anymore. Maybe we'll talk again in 4 or 5 months.

Never wrestle with a pig , Jack...

You just get dirty , and the freakin' pig enjoys it...

Good to see you 'round here again...Missed you for a tick...

OUT2THEBLACK

Thursday, March 5, 2009 6:55 PM

“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils ; for time is the greatest innovator.” -Francis Bacon

RUE

Thursday, March 5, 2009 7:55 PM

"Heh... you win Rue, whatever."

You mean I did something wrong by REPLYING to YOUR post point by point ? And you have a problem with that --- WHY again ?

***************************************************************

Well, in that case, I'll just point and laugh, since you don't deal with actual discussion.

Sotto voce And people wonder why I don't actually dicsuss things with this crowd. sheesh.

RUE

Thursday, March 5, 2009 8:21 PM

"Broad. As in not specific, and not personal. I posted my perception that our society has lost its passion for independence and freedom." Like this:
"Yes, those, among other things. Most of the people I know want state involvement in everyday life. They expect the government to take care of their children while they are at work, to decide what's good to eat, what medicines they can take, how they can make a living, essentially how to live life. They are uncomfortable with the idea of making decisions for themselves and, apparently through some form of projection, seek to prevent others from doing so as well. They want to be told what to think and what to believe. They want to free themselves from as much responsibility as possible and avoid the repercussions of their mistakes. They want to stumble through life as ignorant children, secure in the notion that the government will protect them from all risk.

Hyperbole ? Yes, but not by much."

"Why CAN'T Ron Paul be President?" Well, I'd say it's b/c all Libertarians are self-centered jack-offs. Hyperbole ? Yes, but not by much.

There ya' go. It meets your criteria, is actually responsive to the question, calls itself an exaggeration, and is therefore an on-topic item for productive dicussion.

***************************************************************

Don't you agree SergeantX ?

SERGEANTX

Thursday, March 5, 2009 8:38 PM

wow....

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 5, 2009 8:52 PM

Quote:
Heh... you win Rue

6IX, reading your posts and Rue's side by side, at least you and I can agree on that ONE point! Facts and logic are not on your side, so instead of being a sore loser you might want to take the oppty to learn something.

FREM, SARG, WULF- I guess libertarians are very much like "the left"... there are Trotskyists and Leninists and Marxists and Maoists and all different kinds of flavors of socialist and it's hard to respond to each one individually.

You're all saying somewhat different things-

Sarge, your main issues seems to be that you don't want to be forced to participate in stuff you don't agree with. So... "forced to particpate"? You're not dragooned into manning the levees, drafted into military service, or required to go to the Official Church. Really, I can think of only TWO things that you are forced to do (by the govt) and even one of them is pretty leaky: paying taxes, and educating your child. So it seems to me that your big beef is really all about taxes. I suspect that you also don't like a lot of the "prohibitions" imposed "by society", but logically that is not being forced into participating. Instead, it is being prohibited from doing something. So you might want to clarify.

Frem- You seem to be very much more process- oriented. It doesn't seem so much about "what" is done as it is about "how" it's organized. In essence, you're against any coercive force. BUT- you DO make exceptions! As I recall, the exception includes self-defense and enforcment of contracts. Does it include anything else? For example, if there's a real bad-*ss and five or six peeps form a posse to take care of the problem...?

Wulf- You claim to be a Libertarian and yet you would REQUIRE that everyone serve in the military. That seems to be a very un-Libertarian position to take, and generally what I gather from your posts is that the only thing you have against the PTB is that you seem to want to be one them so that you can "fix the country" according to YOUR standards.

O2B- You're a jackoff.

--------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, March 6, 2009 1:00 AM

Quote:
Frem- You seem to be very much more process- oriented. It doesn't seem so much about "what" is done as it is about "how" it's organized. In essence, you're against any coercive force. BUT- you DO make exceptions! As I recall, the exception includes self-defense and enforcment of contracts. Does it include anything else? For example, if there's a real bad-*ss and five or six peeps form a posse to take care of the problem...?

Very much process oriented, since replacing the legal bonds with social bonds does little other than move decision making power back onto the most effective folk who have to live under them.

I'll take the last point first - anyone who's seen a barn raising knows the philosophy, and while in THIS day and age threat of lawsuit, legal action or fear of getting involved with folk you do not know are a strong check against it, the desire to render aid is in fact part of human nature via empirical evidence no matter what certain depressing philosophers would have you believe.

And the closer and stronger those social bonds, the more powerful that desire is.

Hell, I've been victim to it over the city council incident, a post I never wanted, but when ENOUGH of the locals pushed me to do it, I went and did what they asked, in spite of having told them what would happen and watching them flake out when it did - not to mention being called upon to minister to folks having a theological crisis due to the collapse of their upper echelons who would otherwise be ministering, and despite having a rather, erm, passionate dislike, to say it nicely, of their whole belief system, stood and delivered cause they didn't trust no one else to DO it.

Sure, sometimes you gotta stomp on your own wants and prejudices for the common good, but when it's a personal CHOICE, things go a lot more smoothly - I can for damn sure in any populated area find five people to help me load a truck, so it stands to reason that in any populated community you can find a least a little assistance on a minimally skilled project, right ?

One factor which I find bothersome is how we isolate ourselves and lock into an Us-N-Them mentality over really dumbass shit like race or gender, politics, geographical location, and worse is how folks have exploited this to prettymuch turn us all against each other, which in combination with the limited, prison-pecking-order social environment of public school and the advent of the internet, has lead to most folks seriously lacking in the necessary interpersonal skills to make it work.
(Subset of that is how that lack also makes verbally de-escalating a conflict before it comes to violence less likely)

We'll get there eventually, but sure ain't gonna happen today, no.

And Re: Contracts.

One of my nitpicks about that is a certain level of inter-corporate collusion and Gov interference making it impossible for say... one bank to offer a less exploitive contract than the others, cause they'll be totally blackballed for it if not prosecuted, see ?

So you wind up with a range of false choices all offering the same copy/pasted boilerplate that doesn't even hold them to the terms of their own contract, while offering you no other option but to take your licks and sign it because you will be unable to fully participate in society without doing so.... todays contracts are a nightmare of de-facto slavemaking and exploitation, to be honest.

What I am talking about is a mutual contract written by a third party for a nominal fee, which is collected to finance enforcement, up to and VERY SPECIFICALLY including violence or confiscation as a result of breach or default.

Just imagine if your bank changes the payment date and amount without notice, and the CEA(Contract Enforcement Agency) brings you your money back, along with that nice marble counter from their front office as your share of the penalty fee for their default and breach ?
(Although you'd still owe the loan, mind)

Admittedly though, I kinda swiped the concept itself from the Bonding Authority in David Drakes novels,

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 1:07 AM

Except me. I may be a self-righteous jerk but I will NEVER admit it!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 6, 2009 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Heh... you win Rue
6IX, reading your posts and Rue's side by side, at least you and I can agree on that ONE point! Facts and logic are not on your side, so instead of being a sore loser you might want to take the oppty to learn something.

LOL... I'm not a sore loser. I just have better things to do with my time than argue with a completely static individual who will never change and who wants to go to great lenghts to limit everyone's freedoms around them when it comes to things that they believe in or condemn, but RUE the day that someone decides that they don't agree with one piece of their flawless logic. Rue (still don't know if it's a he or she after all these years) is just as abrasive as I remember him/her when challenged and I see that the more things change in the world the more they stay the same.

Tell me he/she hasn't been pining over me like that for the last 4 months Signy.... He/she lumped me right in with everyone else he/she hates on these boards after my first post here in forever.

Quote:
Here, SergeantX just demonstrated the same kind of arrogance and elitism that drives him, Wulf, 6-String, CTS and a few others - when people DO think, but in ways they disagree with, they demean 99% of human beings as unthinking stupid sheeple they're reluctantly forced to share the planet with.

I've got me and mine to worry about, and I just don't feel the need anymore to come on here and predict things that will (and have) happened to a bunch of people who argue the point beforehand and when it turns out I'm right don't even take the time to say that maybe they were mistaken.

Practically everything that's happening now besides the color of our President's skin I had been saying would happen for years. Go back to some of my original posts and you'll see me telling people not to buy houses more than a year before the term "housing bubble" was ever coined.

Seriously... Here's hoping there is a Civil War II of some sort and that one day I can just choose to live in a state that meshes most with my idea of what freedom is. There is no perfect world, and I realize that you could never live in a civilized world where everyone thinks that every idea everyone else has is right. I wouldn't want to live in that world anyways. I do want to live in a world where the Federal Central Government is dissolved and states can choose to run the way they see fit. I am sane, and will admit that I do like the idea of having a Federal Government to do the duties it was created to do, but when given an inch it has taken multi-hundred-billion-dollar-bailouts one after another. (This is very much bi-partisan criticism, mind you)

Who watches the Watchmen?

The DEA not doing federal raids on states that legalized the production and distribution of medical marajuana is a great start, but then again the guy telling us that wants to take away all of our guns too, so any way you look at it you lose.

The only reason that they're finally becoming lax on the mecical marajuana laws is because cities, counties, states and the Union is (and has been for quite some time) very bankrupt and the printing presses are on life support. It was a foolish wasteful and unwinnable "War" from the start (notice how they haven't called it "The War on Drugs" since we've had real wars to deal with). The dumb asshats from both sides had to have their backs up against the wall to finally, begrudgingly learn the error of their ways. Now we won't be wasting so much money, and we have the additional tax dollars going to our own local Governments instead of being funneled outside of our country to buy who knows what....

Pity that all humans are like that and no matter how much bickering we do in here, none of us are ever going to say we're wrong until our own backs are up against the wall.

It took the imminent threat of a rat biting off Winston's face to admit that he loved Big Brother. And though after his will was completely broken this statemen

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 4:29 PM

Quote:
it's going to be pretty hard to keep enforcing those smoking laws anyhow.

Unless you're smoking in my presence, in which case I'll get a big friend to back me and rip that cig out of your mouth and grind it out on your face, bc you have NO RIGHT to foul MY air. (The law of: The right to swing your arm ends at my nose).

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 4:36 PM

You can just walk away. Or he can.

Its whoever is in the space FIRST, Sig.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 4:49 PM

But I have as much right to be where I choose as you do. And I'm not foulng your air, but you're fouling mine. So if the laws aren't on my side, or not enforced, I'd handle it the old-fashioned way: brute force. Whoever has the biggest mob wins.

And you've just demonstrated the arrogance that Rue was complaining about... and you don't even see it.

Sigh.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 4:56 PM

Oh give me a break.

You'll resort to "brute force"?

Sweetheart, if Im standing there, minding my own business and you come with some goon to try and "slap" it off me.. heh.

You BOTH better be bullet-proof.

Jeebus, I say that its whoever is there first..and you respond that its "arrogance" to say that?

WTF?

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 5:09 PM

Quote:
minding my own business

Okay, you think smoking around peeps who DON'T want to breathe your waste is "minding your own business"? Where do you draw the line?

----------------
I was just minding my own business, peeing on the floor. (What? It's less harmful than cigarette smoke, so just avoid the splashing, plug your nose to avoid the eventual smell, and you'll be OK!)

I was just minding my own business, shitting in my pants. (It's my pants and my shit.)

I was just minding my own business, spraying Mace in the air. (Hey, I'm hurting myself too! Besides, you don't have to be here!)

I was just minding my own business, hurling obscenties at everyone walking by. (It's only words! You don't have to listen!)

I was just minding my own business, squirting everyone with a hose. (Hey, it's only water. It won't kill you! Besides, you needed a shower anyway)

I was just minding my own business, swinging my knife around. (Stay clear and you'll stay out of trouble.)

I was just minding my own business, taking aim at everyone who walked by. (Wasn't intending to shoot. Just having fun.)
-------------
I know you have a crazy defensiveness about your own personal addiction, but let's just leave it at YOUR personal addiction. Keep your bad habits to yourself. Or my friends and I will have to shoot you, proving once again that smoking is bad for your health.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 6, 2009 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Or my friends and I will have to shoot you, proving once again that smoking is bad for your health.

LOLROTFF!!!!!

"Thanks." -Hero, 2009

The laughing Chrisisall

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 6:36 PM

Lol Fine.

But again, if Im standing outside in a public place, smoking....youove got no right to come along and tell me to quit it.

Stop being meddlesom, you Alliance stooge.

KWICKO

Friday, March 6, 2009 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Lol Fine.

But again, if Im standing outside in a public place, smoking....youove got no right to come along and tell me to quit it.

Stop being meddlesom, you Alliance stooge.

And Wulfie? If you're standing there smoking, and I walk up and fart right on you - a really big, juicy, tasty one - then you have absolutely no right to complain about it. After all, it's not hurting you, right? And farts are actually far less harmful to your health than second-hand smoke.

Mike

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 7:08 PM

No, the metaphor only works if I walk up to YOU, and blow smoke in YOUR face.

CITIZEN

Friday, March 6, 2009 7:15 PM

Actually something similar happened, I was on a train station, years back when it wasn't illegal, and I was smoking a cig, when some bird looked at me like a piece of shit, and said "THAT'S DISGUSTING" and flounced off very theatrically.

I said it wasn't as disgusting as her behaviour. If you're outside in Central London, you're not there for the fresh air any way. It's not like I was blowing smoke in her face, or that she was any where near me, she was just some hate filled crusader. If she had asked me to move, I would have done.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Friday, March 6, 2009 7:32 PM

"But again, if Im standing outside in a public place, smoking....you've got no right to come along and tell me to quit it."

Go do some homework and come back when you're not quite so ignorant, m'kay ?

Smoking outside still causes second-hand smoke exposure to children
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673602086038

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/4/235
Legislation reduces exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in New Zealand bars by about 90% (which addresses the problem of exposure to outdoor secondhand smoke)

http://tobaccolawcenter.com/documents/symposium-repace.pdf
BENEFITS OF SMOKE-FREE REGULATIONS IN OUTDOOR SETTINGS: BEACHES, GOLF COURSES, PARKS, PATIOS, AND IN MOTOR VEHICLES

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 6, 2009 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So if the laws aren't on my side, or not enforced, I'd handle it the old-fashioned way: brute force. Whoever has the biggest mob wins.

To some, it would seem, that's the essence of democracy.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 7:51 PM

Quote:
But again, if Im standing outside in a public place, smoking....youove got no right to come along and tell me to quit it.

I suppose it depends on whether I'm constrained to be in that area. If we're both in a bus stop shelter and its raining, I can't really avoid your smoke, can I?

I was in gym yesterady... it's just a small strip-mall gym... and peeps were standing right outside the door smoking and the wind was blowing it inside. I popped my head out and asked them to move a few feet from the door. It just seems to be a matter of common courtesy... which, along with common sense... seems to be un-common these days.

But I think the point is that 6IX wants to smoke ANYWHERE - in bars, particularly- as he sees it as his RIGHT to be an obnoxious doofus.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

RUE

Friday, March 6, 2009 7:52 PM

SergeantX

The difference between my post and yours - I was posting for illustration purposes. And I actually have more to back up my post that you do yours. You, you believe what you post - and with nothing whatsoever to back up what you assume.

That man who could easily kill ? You're still him. You dehumanize pretty much everyone, which is what makes the idea of killing so easy.

So, why do you do it ? It's an ego boost, to think you're better than everyone. It's that banal, that trivial. And it fits with your clinical paranoia.

So, whatever. That mask you wear slipped off, and YOU showed up and posted this:

Most of the people I know want state involvement in everyday life. They
expect the government to take care of their children (negligent, unloving and lazy)
to decide what's good to eat (without common animal sense)
what medicines they can take (ignorant and stupid)
how they can make a living (natural slaves).
essentially how to live life (terminally unfit).

They are uncomfortable with making decisions for themselves (slavish and stupid)
and seek to prevent others from doing so as well (brutish unthinking mobs).

They want to be told what to think and what to believe (eager victims).

They want to free themselves from as much responsibility as possible (lazy)

and avoid the repercussions of their mistakes (cowardly).

They want to stumble through life as ignorant children, secure in the notion that the government will protect them from all risk.

THIS IS WHAT YOU THINK OF THE 99% OF PEOPLE WHO DID NOT CHOOSE RON RAUL. And all because they do not think like you.

"To some, it would seem, that's the essence of democracy."

Yes, the inferior people who do not think like you - how DARE they create a society and not bend to your whims !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 7:55 PM

Quote:
To some, it would seem, that's the essence of democracy.

To some, that would seem the essence of Libertarianism.

Sarge, let's use YOUR analogy: I hate being forced to participate in something I disagree with. In this case, its smoking.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:01 PM

Hey rue,

I didn't read your post because, well it seemed pretty pointless. I'll assume you were calling me "arrogant" for have the nerve to express my opinion and *gasp* assume that I'm right.

Anyway, I can't really see any point in reading your nonsense until you can tell the difference between social commentary and personal attack. For edification:

If I express my opinion that our nation is morally bankrupt and no longer values the things I consider important, it's not a personal attack. It's social commentary.

If, however, I say that you are an ignorant, spiteful cunt who adds nothing to a discussion and merely trolls these boards to thread-crap on anything she doesn't agree with (and doesn't have the intelligence to argue against), well, THAT would be an insult and a personal attack. See the difference?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:04 PM

Sergeant,

Rues a LITTLE sensitive....just so you know.

Edit: Just read this part...

"If, however, I say that you are an ignorant, spiteful cunt who adds nothing to a discussion and merely trolls these boards to thread-crap on anything she doesn't agree with (and doesn't have the intelligence to argue against), well, THAT would be an insult and a personal attack. See the difference?"

BUUUUUURRRRRNNNNNNNN!

Man, I can smell the pork cooking over here...

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:11 PM

And Wulf, of course, is not.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Hey rue,

I didn't read your post because, well it seemed pretty pointless. I'll assume you were calling me "arrogant" for have the nerve to express my opinion and *gasp* assume that I'm right.

Anyway, I can't really see any point in reading your nonsense until you can tell the difference between social commentary and personal attack. For edification:

If I express my opinion that our nation is morally bankrupt and no longer values the things I consider important, it's not a personal attack. It's social commentary.

If, however, I say that you are an ignorant, spiteful cunt who adds nothing to a discussion and merely trolls these boards to thread-crap on anything she doesn't agree with (and doesn't have the intelligence to argue against), well, THAT would be an insult and a personal attack. See the difference?

SergeantX

You really should read her post. It's brutal, maybe more so than necessary, but it would be constructive if you have the intestinal fortitude to consider it. It's where I was trying to go earlier with your same post - I was just slower and less blunt.

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Edit: Just read this part...

"If, however, #######"

BUUUUUURRRRRNNNNNNNN!

Man, I can smell the pork cooking over here...

Oh, come on now. You can't take stuff out of context. That was very clearly a hypothetical for illustrative purposes only.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:16 PM

"If, however, I say that you are an ignorant, spiteful cunt who adds nothing to a discussion and merely trolls these boards to thread-crap on anything she doesn't agree with (and doesn't have the intelligence to argue against), well, THAT would be an insult and a personal attack. See the difference?"

You throw crap my way, even in general, and I'll make SURE to throw it back - exactly where it came from. Remember - what goes around, comes around ...

BTW - my post wasn't meant for you. It won't help you as you have serious and probably unfixable personality issues. It's just my observations.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:17 PM

Well, the disdain that Wulf and Sarge hold for us common peeps just drips from every post. But they'll never see it. And that's prolly the reason why Ron Paul never WILL be Prez.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You really should read her post. It's brutal, maybe more so than necessary, but it would be constructive if you have the intestinal fortitude to consider it. It's where I was trying to go earlier with your same post - I was just slower and less blunt.

Hehe, pizmo, on your suggestion, I tried, but I got to the second line: "That man who could easily kill ? You're still him. You dehumanize pretty much everyone, which is what makes the idea of killing so easy."

What do you do with that? She's got some issues. And I don't wanna get involved.

I'm plenty open to criticism, but for her it's all about personal attack. I'm not interested in playing. (although I recognize that it can be tremendously satisfying

)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, March 6, 2009 8:22 PM

I see Sarge that you have no answer for me being forced to participate in smoking.

BTW, you never did clarify... aside from taxes, what ARE you being forced to particpiate in? And how does Wulf's vision of universal military conscription fit in with your Libertarian ideals?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE