Ron Paul - Will Americans Support Him?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by leo

And 5 years later?

Even 10 years since 9/11, many people are going to still be too ignorant to understand blowback when it comes to the actions of their government. People are in many cases too proud of their government to know better...

If I shit on my neighbors yard all the time, do I really think I did not have any cause when my neighbor got a ton of shit and dumped it in my yard?

[leo]

Originally Posted by Gilby

People are in many cases too proud of their government to know better...

Lack of empathy (or restricted by nationalism), or lack of vision that goes beyond the power and authority of propaganda-makers.

Let's swop focus from "the war on terror" to "the war on drugs";
it seems the drugs are winning in Afganistan, and on the U.S. streets.
With such a export restrictions who could be behind that?
The same "Taliban" or those who came up with the name القاعدة ...?

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Even 10 years since 9/11, many people are going to still be too ignorant to understand blowback when it comes to the actions of their government. People are in many cases too proud of their government to know better...

If I shit on my neighbors yard all the time, do I really think I did not have any cause when my neighbor got a ton of shit and dumped it in my yard?

What??!

Isn't that shit from the USA actually valuable fertilizer?

[feel the light]

Stuff I don't like

Gold is not money, it is a commodity. Abortions will take place, dangerously, if they are illegal.

What I like about Ron Paul.
His foreign policy is spot on. Get the fuck out. His explanation of "blow back" is spot on. The best. We are the bully corporate sponsored ass holes of the world and they hate us for it for this reason. Paul stands alone in being the only major voice saying this. I love this guy.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by feel the light

Stuff I don't like

Gold is not money, it is a commodity. Abortions will take place, dangerously, if they are illegal.

Gold has been money for thousands of years. It has consistently been what civilizations fall back to using when other attempts at money fail. It is a commodity, and it is money. His position as far as what the United States should do is to simply legalize it and allow competition with federal reserve notes. Remove the barriers (taxes, reporting, coining, etc) that are limiting its use as money right now. A non-fiat money system would restrain the government so it can't create endless wars and bail out its corporate interests.

While Ron Paul is pro-life, his position is to return it to state jurisdiction, just like murder, and other crimes, which currently fall under state jurisdiction.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

What??!

Isn't that shit from the USA actually valuable fertilizer?

Opportunity cost. Yes, that would be a more productive use of that stuff. Just like there are more productive uses of our resources than to wage endless war.

[MrBoogiejuice]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Gold has been money for thousands of years. It has consistently been what civilizations fall back to using when other attempts at money fail. It is a commodity, and it is money. His position as far as what the United States should do is to simply legalize it and allow competition with federal reserve notes. Remove the barriers (taxes, reporting, coining, etc) that are limiting its use as money right now. A non-fiat money system would restrain the government so it can't create endless wars and bail out its corporate interests.

While Ron Paul is pro-life, his position is to return it to state jurisdiction, just like murder, and other crimes, which currently fall under state jurisdiction.

So his libertarianism doesn't extend to women's dominion over their own body - he still deems it acceptable for government (local or national is irrelevant, both are coercive institutions) to hold sway over an individual's reproductive rights?

If centralised national government is so bad why is a smaller, more localised version any better?

Seems to me his thinking's rather inconsistent; individual freedom is paramount unless you don't happen to own property or are a woman.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Ron Paul is pro-life.

Ron Paul is anti-choice. fify

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

So his libertarianism doesn't extend to women's dominion over their own body - he still deems it acceptable for government (local or national is irrelevant, both are coercive institutions) to hold sway over an individual's reproductive rights?

There are two individuals in this. Are one individual's rights more important than another's? That's what makes this a difficult issue. One extreme says there are two lives at conception, and the other extreme says there is only one until the baby is completely born.

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

If centralised national government is so bad why is a smaller, more localised version any better?

You're asking an anarchist... An entity using the threat of violence to gain power over others is not good in any situation. A smaller entity having power over a smaller number of people is better than a large entity having that power. Neither situation is good, but one is better than the other.

When it comes to how a group of people can live and interact with each other, there is no one perfect way that works for everyone. Having things dealt with in a more local mannor allows people to try different things to figure out what works for them and it allows an individual to have more say.

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

Seems to me his thinking's rather inconsistent; individual freedom is paramount unless you don't happen to own property or are a woman.

Good thing everyone is a property owner under a free society. You own your body.

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Ron Paul is anti-choice. fify

I know it's hard to get past the idea that there are only two options in this debate. If I wasn't clear: Ron Paul as an individual is pro-life, his policy isn't to dictate his personal pro-life position on everyone else through the federal government. Leave it up to state jurisdiction and you get many choices.

[GizmoDuck]

Originally Posted by MrBoogiejuice

So his libertarianism doesn't extend to women's dominion over their own body - he still deems it acceptable for government (local or national is irrelevant, both are coercive institutions) to hold sway over an individual's reproductive rights?

If centralised national government is so bad why is a smaller, more localised version any better?

Seems to me his thinking's rather inconsistent; individual freedom is paramount unless you don't happen to own property or are a woman.

Termination of pregnancy is not a libertarian issue- because you can take both opposing views.

It is a definition of life issue.

If you define life as at conception, then of course it should be classified as 'murder'. As a libertarian, you can't 'choose' to murder your next door neighbour or family member because you don't like them. That affects their 'freedom' to live. I can't think of a worse term than 'pro-choice'...it implies that you can 'choose' to murder someone if you define them as being alive.

Now, how one defines life:

-Do you define life at conception? Yet a fertilised egg, and/or blastocyst is nothing more than a small clump of cells. With technology being what it is, we can conceivably clone a human being from somatic cells in the near future. Does that mean every-time you brush your teeth and slough off cheek cells you are committing mass murder?

-Do you define life as after the development of the neural tube (ie early brain)? If you define life beginning prior to this, are you opposed to organ donation? After all, we harvest organs from 'brain dead' people.

-Do you define it when a foetus is viable? That changes with technological advances, but is about/after 20wks gestation.

-Do you define it at birth?

-When they are independent? In which case it should be legitimate to terminate children.

I consider myself to hold libertarian views, but I have a different definition of life to Ron Paul, so I don't support his stance on this issue. To me, you need a brain to be considered 'alive'.

Not that it affects me as I'm not a US Voter.

[GizmoDuck]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Gold has been money for thousands of years. It has consistently been what civilizations fall back to using when other attempts at money fail. It is a commodity, and it is money.

I don't consider Gold a commodity in the sense that it is an input into making things...its value is solely dependent on what people think it is worth or can be exchanged for, not what it is used to make. Therefore it is more a currency than a commodity. Even Silver has industrial uses as a commodity, gold has none (unless you're talking jewellery, which is a relatively minute amount).

A family friend was a refugee from Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge era. Before she fled, they buried all their money and gold under a tree.

Fast forward to 2009, and she returned to the burial site and they dug up what was left behind all those years ago. Guess which retained it's value?

They threw scattered the paper money before leaving.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by GizmoDuck

Not that it affects me as I'm not a US Voter.

Unfortunately, US politics does affect you, since the man behind the curtain likes to commit mass murder to foreigners, which oddly enough is promoted and/or supported by those that claim to be pro-life. War is anything but pro-life.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by GizmoDuck

I don't consider Gold a commodity in the sense that it is an input into making things...its value is solely dependent on what people think it is worth or can be exchanged for, not what it is used to make. Therefore it is more a currency than a commodity. Even Silver has industrial uses as a commodity, gold has none (unless you're talking jewellery, which is a relatively minute amount).

The value of any asset is in what it can be used for and what the demand is for those uses. You're wrong about gold not having industrial uses. It's used a lot in electronics, though the actual amount is low. The typical cell phone has $0.50 to $1 of gold in it.

[GizmoDuck]

I meant it doesn't affect me in the sense that I have no say on the matter, and unless the US decide to push its view on TOPs in their foreign policy, their position doesn't affect us. Of course I take an interest in the US, most things you do over there does affect the rest of the world.

In terms of Gold, sure there are a few industrial uses, but it is dwarfed by its use as an alternate currency or store of value.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Gilby

I know it's hard to get past the idea that there are only two options in this debate. If I wasn't clear: Ron Paul as an individual is pro-life, his policy isn't to dictate his personal pro-life position on everyone else through the federal government. Leave it up to state jurisdiction and you get many choices.

No one is pro-abortion, so his personal pro-life position is worthless. a libertarian does not support the individual states right to control the drugs you put into your body or what you do with your body.

For the women in many states, his position leaves them no choice, as is already the case. It's his downfall that he lets individual states control an individual's body and personal medical choices.