The Paul File

[Michael]

For decades, segregation was the norm, and it took non-violent confrontation of the problem to change the laws. Yes, boycotts were used to bring economic pressure to bear on the problem, but that alone wouldn't have worked as a permanent solution.

Well, we'll never really know. I think society would have changed. The only laws that needed repealed were the ones where blacks were forced by law not to be treated equitably. From there things would have changed organically.

Or so I think.

I also think these laws have permanently reenforced the race meme.


I'm not sure if Jews and Asians would be a good example, but it seems their "community's" (if such a thing can be said to exist) are much more successful than those of black Americans.



I really don't want to get to side tracked on race, for one it's illusion, and for two what's important to me are RP's views on the Central Bank and removing redundant wasteful agency from government. I trust YOU to spend your tax money more than I do the government to do it for you. You'll probably be much more careful and responsible with your money.

 

[superluminal]

Am I fucking stupid? So, that's the way you open your dialogue?

If the shoe fits. Change my opinion if you can.

I put forward my idea, which is non-violence. Yours is violence of the State.

Again, please describe the "violence" done in protecting humans from willful discrimination. You are confusing me.

How many people will open shops up? In a free world I think there'd be plenty of people who would open up a shop to compete with the bigots' shop. If there's money to be made, I can't imagine some NOT opening up a shop.

How old are you? Do you know any history at all? I shouldn't have to explain this. People will NOT open up shops to compete with the bigots. They never have and never will without the mechanism of rational human rights enforcement. This is a demonstrated fact that encompasses all of human history.

I've supervised female as well as minority employee's. I could have easily abused my position. If anything I probably go the other way and subconsciously promote female employee's over male. Usually because they seem much more dedicated and serious while male's seem more easy going and mate-like, but not as seriously minded. That could be my upbringing though. I grew up with my mother. The point is, I never act immorally or harassed people - not because I'm worried about the State (obviously pinching an arse is not the only way to harass and make a sexual harassing position quite clear) but because I was raised to treat people as I would want to be treated, fairly. I think most people are like me, if not society would probably be complete hell.

This is nice. I'm the same way. So what? "Most people" are not the issue. It's the large portion of people who desire power, (who are not suprisingly the ones who get it) and will virtually ALWAYS (again, human history 101) abuse it to the detriment of not just a woman employee or a black who wants a sandwich, but entire populations of infidels, sub-humans, slaves, serfs, barbarians, savages, etc.

See my point? You have a very naive and honestly uninformed position. Seriously, examine human history and our "exemplary" behavior without rational regulation directed toward fundamental human rights and dignity.

This is your libertarian paradise. A return to the golden days of humans dominating other humans for personal gain. You are wrong - flat out wrong about human nature.

I'm glad you're a nice person. You would be dead or a slave in another time.

 

[Michael]

What you and Paul fail to understand is that both the government and the private or corporate sector are capable of oppressing you. In advocating an allegedly "non-violent" (meaning impotent) government, you invite private oppression.

To equate liberal domestic policy with the theocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia is beyond absurd. The Saudi form is the wet dream of conservatives, where business thrives in almost complete freedom as long as you pay off the correct official, and private freedom is highly controlled.

This is a moral failing on the part of us, the public. Freedom needs to be worked on, defended and society needs to be properly informed and WANT to be informed.

One wonders: Why does it fail?

I think part of the problem is the Federal Reserve system. This has allowed us to live well and truly past our means and hidden the consequences of our actions.


Regarding corporation and power. GoldmanSux and BJ Morgan are able to use the current system to run up bets into the hundreds of trillions of dollars - multiple times more than decades of our GDP. They are able to do this because we lost control of the measure of our wealth. Do you really think it's YOU Obama is thinking of saving the arse of? I hope you're not that naive. Each year your lot in this world is getting worse, your rights are diminished, you become more dependent on the State, on the use of State power and violence, on the present system and (ultimately) on those very large Corporations you thought the State was defending you against, but was really selling you out to.


Again, when the State borrows trillions of dollars from the Chinese in bond auctions - what is promised? What does the lender get in return for their wealth?

YOU

 

[superluminal]

You don't seem to want to understand Libertarianism anyway.

Oh, I think I do. I've read your propaganda for years. Even thought I might be one when I was much younger. The I grew up and started thinking about the real world implications of true free-market economics, looked at the history of the morality of humans in unregulated societies, and thought long and hard about what minimally-limited individual rights really entails.

It's clear to me that it is a nightmare scenario for any rational being.

What I'm saying is that I recommend a rational application of common-pool resourcing, regulation of economic institutions, and protection of human rights and dignity from the tyranny of the majority. That's pretty much it.

This libertarian mentality (which I do understand) is that of a selfish child who, at his whim, will share or not share his toy regardless of who he makes cry.

Does that clear it up?

 

[superluminal]

This is a moral failing on the part of us, the public. Freedom needs to be worked on, defended and society needs to be properly informed and WANT to be informed.

One wonders: Why does it fail?

Funny. You just answered your own question.

"This is a moral failing on the part of us, the public"

The only difference between you and me on this point is that you think this is just a temporary thing that can be "trained" out of the population and our leaders.

All libertarians should be required to take at least one serious course in the study of human behavior. If they took it seriously, they'd abandon the philosophy.

I think part of the problem is the Federal Reserve system. This has allowed us to live well and truly past our means and hidden the consequences of our actions.

Huh? No. No, no, no. It really is that people are just shits en masse. See above.

Do you really think it's YOU Obama is thinking of saving the arse of? I hope you're not that naive. Each year your lot in this world is getting worse, your rights are diminished, you become more dependent on the State, on the use of State power and violence, on the present system and (ultimately) on those very large Corporations you thought the State was defending you against, but was really selling you out to.

I agree for the most part with this. We are rapidly becoming (if not already in fact) a "corporatocracy" which is appalling to me. Libertarianism is not the solution. The application of reason dosed with a heaping measure of human compassion is. As a middle class american, I don't feel that my rights are being diminished, or that any violence has ever been done to me.

Again, when the State borrows trillions of dollars from the Chinese in bond auctions - what is promised? What does the lender get in return for their wealth?

YOU

Kind of. Yep. And I agree. That sucks.

 

[Michael]

If the shoe fits. Change my opinion if you can.


Again, please describe the "violence" done in protecting humans from willful discrimination. You are confusing me.


How old are you? Do you know any history at all? I shouldn't have to explain this. People will NOT open up shops to compete with the bigots. They never have and never will without the mechanism of rational human rights enforcement. This is a demonstrated fact that encompasses all of human history.


This is nice. I'm the same way. So what? "Most people" are not the issue. It's the large portion of people who desire power, (who are not suprisingly the ones who get it) and will virtually ALWAYS (again, human history 101) abuse it to the detriment of not just a woman employee or a black who wants a sandwich, but entire populations of infidels, sub-humans, slaves, serfs, barbarians, savages, etc.

See my point? You have a very naive and honestly uninformed position. Seriously, examine human history and our "exemplary" behavior without rational regulation directed toward fundamental human rights and dignity.

This is your libertarian paradise. A return to the golden days of humans dominating other humans for personal gain. You are wrong - flat out wrong about human nature.

I'm glad you're a nice person. You would be dead or a slave in another time.

I also like to study history - including novelized history. Here's an interesting book on the unification of Japan you may like: Taiko.


As for Libertarianism, here's something interesting. I asked a Buddhist priest (I'm staying in a Temple in Japan right now) what he thought of Ron Paul and Libertarianism (I just clicked onto the wiki websites) and he said its good. But that most people can't think like that, although it would be good if they could. Ron Paul he thought sounded like a good person to be POTUS but because he's a Libertarian most people (who can't think like that) probably wouldn't vote for him. He also thought wealthy people shouldn't pay so much in tax and that welfare should be reduced. But, what to do with the really really poor he wasn't sure - maybe the state does need to step in and help. In the past we were talking about wealthy people and he told me they're usually the biggest cheapskates. They'll donate $10,000 which is pocket change to them but ONLY because it's socially expected of them to do so, not one cent more. So, he does agree with the nature of wealthy people being ass holes. He still seems to think they shouldn't have to pay so much tax. Regular people often donate more than is expected. I suppose it's the way of people, probably why really wealthy people are really wealthy to begin with.... anyway, this is a little of a side track.


As for most of history - for the most part people have lived under dictatorial rule and under a number of different illusions (religion being the main one, but the State being a pretty good rival). The USA was an exception, we were Libertarian minded. Freedom FROM the state and control OVER the government is what set our society apart and ushered in prosperity not seen since Rome. That to me seems to be coming to an end as the rise of the State erodes more and more of our individualism and personal rights.

What do you think about the Store owner BEING a bigot? I mean, should that be legal? Should he be fined, imprisoned? What about teaching his children to be bigots? Should that be legal? Should the State play a role there?

IMO the best way to create society is through volunteerism. I am 100% sure that a NON-bigoted store would open up in that town because at the end of the day Blacks need to buy things and someone (maybe a Black American) would have to supply them those things. It's really silly to think otherwise. That the ONLY way blacks could purchase goods is from a bigot forced to sell them. That to me needs a reality check.


Did you know that the US military can now more easily act INSIDE of the USA? You know, in case of Islamic Terrorism.... THAT doesn't bother you .... at all?

On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

You study history, what usually happens to free people?

 

[Michael]

Funny. You just answered your own question.

"This is a moral failing on the part of us, the public"

The only difference between you and me on this point is that you think this is just a temporary thing that can be "trained" out of the population and our leaders.

All libertarians should be required to take at least one serious course in the study of human behavior. If they took it seriously, they'd abandon the philosophy.


Huh? No. No, no, no. It really is that people are just shits en masse. See above.



I agree for the most part with this. We are rapidly becoming (if not already in fact) a "corporatocracy" which is appalling to me. Libertarianism is not the solution. The application of reason dosed with a heaping measure of human compassion is. As a middle class american, I don't feel that my rights are being diminished, or that any violence has ever been done to me.


Kind of. Yep. And I agree. That sucks.

Then I suppose it's a question of addressing a problem we both can see as a problem.

While I don't think a "Libertarian" paradise is about to erupt, as you say, it's just not functionally possible - I do think it's something we should strive towards (knowing it's never going to be within reach). This philosophy should underpin our rational when we make decisions going forward.

For example: RP has states while Medicare is not ideal, those promises have been made and he would support it BUT people below the age of 25 should have the freedom and personal choice to opt out of that particular system should they choose to do so.

Surely that's fair?

 

[superluminal]

As for Libertarianism, here's something interesting. I asked a Buddhist priest (I'm staying in a Temple in Japan right now) what he thought of Ron Paul and Libertarianism (I just clicked onto the wiki websites) and he said its good. But that most people can't think like that, although it would be good if they could. Ron Paul he thought sounded like a good person to be POTUS but because he's a Libertarian most people (who can't think like that) probably wouldn't vote for him.

Well, that's nice for the priest. Glad he likes RP. Don't really care. The statement " most people can't think like that" should really be " most people refuse to think like that" and for good reason, as I've explained.

...we were Libertarian minded. Freedom FROM the state and control OVER the government is what set our society apart and ushered in prosperity not seen since Rome. That to me seems to be coming to an end as the rise of the State erodes more and more of our individualism and personal rights.

Well, I see it quite differently. Could you give me some examples of the erosion of my rights and individualism? I might change my mind if your examples are accurate and compelling.

What do you think about the Store owner BEING a bigot? I mean, should that be legal? Should he be fined, imprisoned? What about teaching his children to be bigots? Should that be legal? Should the State play a role there?

The state should do exactly what it did. Allow the store owner to be as much of a bigoted asshole as he wants, but find that unless there is a legitimate business reason (safety, disease contamination, etc) to discriminate, he cannot. If he doesn't want to serve people because of an innate skin pigmentation, he can close up shop and do something else with his time. That's the sort of society I wish to live in. If the libertarian way ever came to be, I assure you that the price in divisiveness, hatred and REAL violence would be far more than you would care to pay.

IMO the best way to create society is through volunteerism. I am 100% sure that a NON-bigoted store would open up in that town because at the end of the day Blacks need to buy things and someone (maybe a Black American) would have to supply them those things. It's really silly to think otherwise. That the ONLY way blacks could purchase goods is from a bigot forced to sell them. That to me needs a reality check.

Silly to think otherwise? Do you have any knowledge of the pre-civil rights south of the USA? You are simply wrong.

And your scenario also assumes that the blacks in question are not slaves. Slavery is a very real and persistent human endeavor. What in your philosophy prohibits slavery if an entrepreneur wants to collect some and it makes good business sense? Is it that individual liberty is cherished among libertarians? What if the prevailing wisdom is that blacks are not individuals, but property? The state has no business interfering with our hypothetical entrepreneur, does it?

 

[Michael]

An example of Libertarianism failing would be the Peer to Peer Banking services that started. The person who started that business, which kind of makes sense considering what it is, is a Libertarian. What he found was that people were way to ill informed to properly lend money. They had no sound understanding of the system and were basically loosing too much of their money to scoundrels, cheats, etc.... So it went out of business. He has since said that his Libertarian philosophy clouded his vision when it came to his exceptions of the general public's desire to self educate and evaluate risk properly.

So, his new business takes those freedoms out of the hands of the general public and is approximating a normal bank.

OK, we both can agree knowing people, that's not surprising. So, IMM, we should work to better educate the public so that someday in the future maybe people WILL have the skills required to evaluate risk and lend responsibility ... cutting out the need for banks.

Libertarianism is in my opinion a way of seeing things. We should view the State as something to be held in check, that will (if given a half a chance) more than happy to use violence to suppress the individual. I'm less worried of Apple knocking on my door to tell me to buy and iPhone and not an Android than I am of the State putting me in jail for not paying my tax bill, or not fighting in a war I'm drafted into, or for peacefully sitting on a sidewalk in protest.... When corporations want to use force against the public, they call on the State.

 

[superluminal]

...people below the age of 25 should have the freedom and personal choice to opt out of that particular system should they choose to do so.

Surely that's fair?

Opt out? I'm certain he said he would ELIMINATE all common-pool social safety nets. There is no "opt out", there simply is no option at all. And this is a fundamental flaw in the libertarian understanding of human nature.

Smart, careful, responsible people will and do make mistakes, underestimate, overestimate, and just plain get hit with bad luck. Horrendous bad luck. You and your brethren would provide no core support for this large group (that I would argue contains almost everyone at various points throughout life).

And to think that volunteerism will fill the need let alone have the capability to fill the need is sheer lunacy imo. Outside of our intuitive social group (30 to 150 people) we are strangers, deserving of no more thought than you give to the children who are dying now... and now... and now... all over the world. They simply are not part of your family and that's it.

The only libertarians I know in real life have been fairly well-off middle and upper class people. Why is that I wonder...?

 

[superluminal]

We should view the State as something to be held in check, that will (if given a half a chance) more than happy to use violence to suppress the individual. I'm less worried of Apple knocking on my door to tell me to buy and iPhone and not an Android than I am of the State putting me in jail for not paying my tax bill, or not fighting in a war I'm drafted into, or for peacefully sitting on a sidewalk in protest.... When corporations want to use force against the public, they call on the State.

This I almost completely agree with. 95%.

The tax thing I disagree with. I know the libertarian line on taxes and I think it's ludicrous. To imagine the kind of infrastructure we have now (even though much of it needs to be upgraded) existing without common-pool contributions from citizens is, imo, delusional. I understand the arguments and again, they miss entirely the fundamental facts of human nature in large groups.

The major problem I see in our current societal situation is that of corporate lobbying and influence (which should be eliminated) and the self-interested asshats on the left and the right.

An interesting observation that I have made is that the same self interest displayed by most political dipshits is very similar to the "rational self interest" espoused by many libertarians (especially the Ayn-Randian sociopathic lunatic versions ... "Rand" Paul anyone?). Not working too well, is it?

 

[Michael]

This I almost completely agree with. 95%.

The tax thing I disagree with. I know the libertarian line on taxes and I think it's ludicrous. To imagine the kind of infrastructure we have now (even though much of it needs to be upgraded) existing without common-pool contributions from citizens is, imo, delusional. I understand the arguments and again, they miss entirely the fundamental facts of human nature in large groups.

The major problem I see in our current societal situation is that of corporate lobbying and influence (which should be eliminated) and the self-interested asshats on the left and the right.

All roads are built by private enterprise - it's just paid for through tax instead of toll. Regardless, it's going to be paid for one way or another. It's probably much more expensive when the State pays their mates with the right connections to build a road (as that's just the way it ALWAYS goes).

That aside, railroads were created by private investment. As a matter of fact, ALL of the government run railroad companies went bust and needed bailed out. Not to mention telecommunications, modern computers, smart phones, airplanes, ... just about everything that is sophisticated and inexpensive and decent in the world is the product of private enterprise. The only thing I can think of that's run by the government is the Post Office and they suck because of government regulation (which has some odd rules regarding plush pensions that make it fiscally untenable - hence we all pay more in our tax [government job protection and pension is soo SOOOO much better than what we the little peons get working for a living).


Regarding those asshats on the right and left, the last thing you'd want to do is put these guys in charge of ANYTHING. They suck at doing anything except pandering and promising bullshit never telling the public the huge debt with interest it has to pay in return for the "free" roads and stuff.


I suppose if you feel things are going in the right direction, then vote for more of the same :shrug: If you want to TRY a different direction then vote for Ron Paul. It should be noted a RP POTUS isn't going to cause the sky to collapse. If it doesn't work, then we do something different.

 

[spidergoat]

This is a moral failing on the part of us, the public. Freedom needs to be worked on, defended and society needs to be properly informed and WANT to be informed.

One wonders: Why does it fail?

I think part of the problem is the Federal Reserve system. This has allowed us to live well and truly past our means and hidden the consequences of our actions.


Regarding corporation and power. GoldmanSux and BJ Morgan are able to use the current system to run up bets into the hundreds of trillions of dollars - multiple times more than decades of our GDP. They are able to do this because we lost control of the measure of our wealth. Do you really think it's YOU Obama is thinking of saving the arse of? I hope you're not that naive. Each year your lot in this world is getting worse, your rights are diminished, you become more dependent on the State, on the use of State power and violence, on the present system and (ultimately) on those very large Corporations you thought the State was defending you against, but was really selling you out to.


Again, when the State borrows trillions of dollars from the Chinese in bond auctions - what is promised? What does the lender get in return for their wealth?

YOU

But how is Paul's libertarianism a solution to excessive corporate power? He doesn't believe in controlling them!

 

[786]

I'm not sure how to be any clearer than I already have been:

I already answered this question. Albiet I used my own example because I don't like the meme of the white guy always being the shop owner.

Here's reminder so you don't have to go back yourself.

No consider I'm a Black Shop Owner and you are White Supremacist KKK Member. I can eject you for whatever reason. You don't have the right to use something that I own. Namely my business.

Did you catch the answer? Or did I not answer your question? (More like I didn't play along with the 'poor black guy' meme so you couldn't possibly want to read the answer that was clearly there )

 

[786]

Oh, well, that's obvious. Drop the point entirely and agree with everything he says

Nice of you to step in and then continuing with an unrelated discussion.

They don't have an answer because the detail is excruciating. The emotional appeal against the guv'mint takin' 'way yer rights is much more gratifying.

Actually I had this discussion and the 'answer' long time back. The problem is, you don't want to accept it because it seems so 'inhumane' to you and so your definition of 'rights' is totally screwed up from 'our' point of view.

 

[Michael]

But how is Paul's libertarianism a solution to excessive corporate power? He doesn't believe in controlling them!

This is an interesting question.

I think firstly is to recognize the role that the federal reserve has played in maintaining the ruling oligarchy. The Fed could have secured every single American's bank account for, I think it was 4 Trillion, but instead "bailed out the banks" to the tune of >13 Trillion.

You think the government is the SOLUTION to corporate power? My God, it's the MEANS!

DO you honestly fear Apple? I know I don't. Corporations can be controlled through the Law.

Anyhow, one of the very first things RP said he will do is work to remove personhood from corporations. At present they are treated as if they are real people. Which they are not.

It's not like this mess is going to be cleaned up in a year, or two years or even a decade. The hole we've dug ourselves into was started around 100 years ago and really got moving along 40 years ago.

 

[Michael]

Happy New Year

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, how appropriate.

 

[joepistole]

This is an interesting question.

I think firstly is to recognize the role that the federal reserve has played in maintaining the ruling oligarchy. The Fed could have secured every single American's bank account for, I think it was 4 Trillion, but instead "bailed out the banks" to the tune of >13 Trillion.

Oh, the Fed secured the banks to the tune of 13 trillion dollars? Where did you get that? Do you realized, 13 trillion was about the size of the entire US economy in 2008? Thirteen trillion dollars is several fold larger than the US money supply.

You think the government is the SOLUTION to corporate power? My God, it's the MEANS!

Yes government is the solution to excessive corporate power. You seem to think that eliminating government will some how magically empower the individual. That is the same kind of magical thinking embraced by communism.

You are correct in stating that government is a tool used by corporate interests to advance their causes at the expense of the people. But people who are unable to act collectively are no threat to corporate power with or without a government.

DO you honestly fear Apple? I know I don't. Corporations can be controlled through the Law.

Anyhow, one of the very first things RP said he will do is work to remove personhood from corporations. At present they are treated as if they are real people. Which they are not.

That by itself would be a good thing, but not enough to remedy all the crazy things Ron Paul says he wants to do.

It's not like this mess is going to be cleaned up in a year, or two years or even a decade. The hole we've dug ourselves into was started around 100 years ago and really got moving along 40 years ago.

You are right, things are not going to be fixed overnight. The core of our problem has plagued the nation since its inception. It is the rust that ultimately has been responsible for the fall of all great societies throughout our history. That rust is corruption. It has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. The US challenge with corruption lies in the halls of Congress and legislatures throughout the land. Corruption is part and parcel of our electoral process and they way our elected officials conduct themselves while in office.

So you want change? Make sure you have the right target in sight so you don't wind up targeting your foot instead of the real enemy.

 

[Tiassa]

Why are "libertarians" so dogmatic?

Actually I had this discussion and the 'answer' long time back.

Was that the part where you compared a woman to real estate, or backed off on that point for obvious reasons, while splitting your support and opposition of "life at conception" and failing to answer a direct question about government policy when comparing the rights of mother and fetus?

The problem is, you don't want to accept it because it seems so 'inhumane' to you and so your definition of 'rights' is totally screwed up from 'our' point of view.

As far as I can tell, this is standard libertarian fare: If your answer doesn't work, collides with functional questions, and evades your own "libertarian" resolution, the reason it doesn't work is obviously that other people don't want to accept it.

Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters.