View Full Version : Offtopic: Freedom politics for free software junkies.
"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."
- The Hon. Rep. Dr. Ron Paul
We have to make this man president! :D
http://ronpaul2008.com
http://ronpaultv.com
http://ronpaulaudio.com
http://paulonpaper.com
http://ronpaulforums.com
Karel Jansens
2007-06-26, 09:58
Amen. It appears the spirit of the Founding Fathers hasn't been killed off completely yet.
We have to make this man president! :D
If you want someone with ties to the Aryan Nations, I suppose so...
Ron Paul seems to be one of those libertarians that is influenced in passing by the militia-inspired obsessions that the federal government is evil because it'll never be white enough.
Well... I wanted to get behind Ron Paul, too, until I found out he's not consistently libertarian. His views on religion, abortion and other topics are out of kilter with the quote above. I'm leery of someone suffering that sort of cognitive dissonance.
I'm for the kind of big government that created the Internet and supports libraries and highway systems today, and I hope it brings about cheaper and more inclusive health care than the current system does.
Karel Jansens
2007-06-26, 16:00
Well... I wanted to get behind Ron Paul, too, until I found out he's not consistently libertarian. His views on religion, abortion and other topics are out of kilter with the quote above. I'm leery of someone suffering that sort of cognitive dissonance.
He is consistent: Against death penalty as well as against abortion and euthanasia. His statement: "I am pro-life".
In my mind, that's more libertarian than people who are against captal punishment, but have no problems with killing the unborn and the elderly.
Karel Jansens
2007-06-26, 16:01
If you want someone with ties to the Aryan Nations, I suppose so...
Ron Paul seems to be one of those libertarians that is influenced in passing by the militia-inspired obsessions that the federal government is evil because it'll never be white enough.
Idiot......
He is consistent: Against death penalty as well as against abortion and euthanasia. His statement: "I am pro-life".
In my mind, that's more libertarian than people who are against captal punishment, but have no problems with killing the unborn and the elderly.
No, it isn't consistent. I won't go into abortion per se but the libertarian stance would be that the government has no right to interfere with the woman's right to have one as guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
By the same token, the State interfering with activities such as suicide and willful euthanasia (I'm being purely objective on the subjects here) is also anathema to libertarianism.
In addition, I find Paul's support for tax money diverted to faith-based initiatives as well as some of his other statements vis-a-vis religion to be seriously at odds with a true libertarian credo. I don't fault him for his beliefs; just the application.
I really wanted to like Ron Paul when he initially hit my radar, but the more I learn of his fatal inconsistencies the less I'm able. His speeches on liberty are nice-- they just don't jibe 100% with his voting record and other expressions. I won't talk anyone out of their own opinions, though. Just expressing mine. :D
penguinbait
2007-06-26, 18:01
I myself had not heard much about Ron Paul until the recent republican debate. I still do not know much about Ron Paul, but if any of the maroons on that stage were going to be president, from what I heard, he is the most sensible.
Ron Paul was the only candidate on that stage that said he would not use nuclear weapons to make a pre-emptive strike on Iran to keep them from becomming a nuclear power.
The rest of the ID10T's on the stage were like Hell yeah, I'll bomb them, no problem.
I myself am looking forward to another 8 years of the Clintons.
GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Abortion, I am completely against abortion. However I am pro-choice. I believe I should try to talk you out of it, and help counsel you. Not judge you, and condenm you. I was given free choice, why should I take away your right to choose. Whats worse killing a baby before its born, or having it grow up in an abused home?
Death Penalty, For cases in which there is no doubt, ie video, overwhelming evidence in heinous cases, go for it. Just don't kill people like Scott Peterson where there is no physical evidence he commited the crime. Child molestors should be put down. Some people can't be or do not deserve to be reformed.
Euthanasia, personally I believe we should have options for people who are suffering and want to end their life. (obviously rules and regulations would apply)
Thats just my opinions, and I am sure I will hear yours shortly!!
Death Penalty, For cases in which there is no doubt, ie video, overwhelming evidence in heinous cases, go for it. Just don't kill people like Scott Peterson where there is no physical evidence he commited the crime. Child molestors should be put down. Some people can't be or do not deserve to be reformed.
I'll avoid going off on my preferred rant on the death penalty (I changed my position to be against it years ago after thinking it through for a good while), but just a note regarding "overwhelming evidence": video is not. In fact the possibility of tampering is one of my many arguments against the death penalty.
I changed my opinion on the death penalty as well in recent years. I was completely against it, but I am now for it in the rare instances in which allowing someone to live poses a substantial continuing threat to society, for example in societies in which killers can buy their way out of prison. So I had no sympathy with Bogart in Treasure of The Sierra Madre or with Saddam.
penguinbait
2007-06-26, 19:58
If you put someone in prison for life. They then continue to try to kill other inmates and CO's, and then proceed to waste tax money by having a trial for someone who is already spending their life in prison.
Enough is enough, FRY EM!!
Other instances also come to mind. This recent murder in Canton OH. This guy killed his kids mother, in front of his two year old. Mommy hit her head, mommy is wrapped in a rug.
Die Die Die no regrets
I am not against the Death penalty for people who merrit it. I did not feel this way before I had 4 kids of my own, but it is very apparent to me that in some instances, it is the best outcome.
Textrat, are you trying to say you did not make that porn movie? Perhaps just a rat look alike.... Paranoia will destroy ya
If you put someone in prison for life. They then continue to try to kill other inmates and CO's, and then proceed to waste tax money by having a trial for someone who is already spending their life in prison.
1. The "kill other inmates" statement is sheer speculation.
2. It costs more to the taxpayers to execute someone than imprison them for life. Google it if you doubt; stats are available.
I'm well-versed in all the arguments favoring the death penalty (I used to be for it myself when I was younger and more bloodthirsty)-- but logically and humanely, the counterarguments shred them beyond hope. Bottom line, the State has no right killing its citizens... especially since so many errors have been made in that pursuit of vengeance.
That's as far as I'll go on the argument. I wasn't easily swayed at first, either. I had to become a student of logic first. ;)
Idiot......
That's not terribly eloquent, Karel. Unless you are referring to Ron Paul, in which case it's still not a very good political critique. :D
Oh, I'm not saying Ron Paul's actually a member of anything as radical as Aryan Nations. We're talking about a great variety of paranoid right-wing organizations; the fact is that he's been at least rubbing shoulders with that kind of crowd for a very long time.
After his 1979-85 service in Congress as a Republican and his 1988 campaign for the presidency as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul returned home to Surfside, Texas and devoted himself to a variety of pursuits, one of which was his self-published newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report. Founded in 1985, the eight-page newsletter featured Paul's extreme libertarian perspective on a number of different issues, notably crackpot theories about the Federal Reserve and the money system and a tireless advocacy of a return to the gold standard—a longtime Ron Paul hobby horse. The Ron Paul Political Report would come to feature in the stable of "underground" publications and photocopied "zines" that fed the nascent "patriot movement" that arose in the early 1990s, spurred by anger over federal government actions in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and by fear of a supposed "New World Order." Indeed, Paul changed the name of the newsletter to the Ron Paul Survival Report around 1993 in what we may presume to be an effort to tap into the survivalist sentiments then peaking among the radical right wing.
There are also plenty of quotes from him that suggest he believes in the "NWO conspiracy" - "the UN rules the world with black helicopters" sort of theories.
penguinbait
2007-06-26, 20:34
Textrat, logic to me says, if you have a dog that attacks people, you put it to sleep. An animal is an animal, I see no difference.
1) You made no point, whats speculation, that it happens everyday?
2) Cost is relative, if it was your kids the psycho killed, you might throw in some extra taxes yourself. What is a humane life worth?
Its easy to look at others and say they are bloodthirsty, or they are not as smart and logical and the all knowing QA guy from nokia....But I seriously think, sometimes people deserve to die!
No gung ho, no kill em all, just rational, protect my family...
barry99705
2007-06-26, 20:38
I try to stay as far from politics as I can. I do have an opinion on the whole "Middle East problem". Pull all our guys and girls out, civilian, military, and diplomatic. Have absolutely nothing to do with them. Let them work their own problems out. They've been fighting each other since before Jesus was born. We're (US) not going to help them. All we're doing is pissing them off, and getting people killed. We have enough oil in the southern states and up here in Alaska to run the country, if we didn't ship it all to China. There's also nothing wrong with tactical nukes, they do a damn fine job of making a point. There has to be consequences for terrorist acts, so far there really hasn't been any. Sure we've killed some of the bad guys, but new one's just take their place. We need to do something that makes them sit back and thing, maybe this isn't such a good idea. All we're doing now is giving them new targets.
Our court system has also become a joke, just look at the "news" for the last month. Why is some rich bimbo on the news because she got a freaking DUI? Throw the ***** in jail and be done with it. The whole world is going to hell in a hand basket.
2. It costs more to the taxpayers to execute someone than imprison them for life. Google it if you doubt; stats are available.
.308 to the back of the head doesn't cost that much. The just do it wrong. I'm not saying kill them all, but when you have confesses killers, or lots of witnesses...
I think I've commented as much as I should here on the death penalty subject... especially since hyperbole and sarcasm have now become the favored mode of response. Arnim's thread is being co-opted, anyway.
I just hope the tendency to treat due process cavalierly is an attribute of the minority...
Hmm. Not a given, that... remember where the verb "to lynch" came from ? :-)
barry99705
2007-06-26, 21:26
I think I've commented as much as I should here on the death penalty subject... especially since hyperbole and sarcasm have now become the favored mode of response. Arnim's thread is being co-opted, anyway.
I just hope the tendency to treat due process cavalierly is an attribute of the minority...
I wasn't being sarcastic.
I went to the Randy Newman School of Political Science...
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
LoL
I doubt that the death penalty is necessary as self-defense in the US for any reason. In Columbia, it's a different story, where drug dealers can do anything and get away with it. In Iraq, you have an unstable situation (thanks to the US) in which there are big risks in keeping certain people alive. In such cases, killing someone who would like to kill you is simply a matter of self defense.
The problem with the low-expense 45 to the head execution is that it is non-reversible, and innocent people always end up being killed when a non-complex execution method is used. Public opinion becomes the reason for executing people, and the public is motivated by rage over a crime, and the rage is focused on whoever is accused regardless of whether they are fully culpable.
barry99705
2007-06-27, 18:36
I doubt that the death penalty is necessary as self-defense in the US for any reason. In Columbia, it's a different story, where drug dealers can do anything and get away with it. In Iraq, you have an unstable situation (thanks to the US) in which there are big risks in keeping certain people alive. In such cases, killing someone who would like to kill you is simply a matter of self defense.
The problem with the low-expense 45 to the head execution is that it is non-reversible, and innocent people always end up being killed when a non-complex execution method is used. Public opinion becomes the reason for executing people, and the public is motivated by rage over a crime, and the rage is focused on whoever is accused regardless of whether they are fully culpable.
Last time I checked, every form of execution is irreversible. That's the point. I'm not saying kill everyone, but like the movie said, "Some people just need killin" ie, murderers, rapists, that sort of thing. The whole court system is screwed up. I can go to prison for a longer time if I pirate a dvd than if I kill someone. If I'm rich enough, and I do the same, I'd probably just get house arrest.
"Murderers, rapists, that sort of thing." That is exactly the scary attitude that bothers me. The casualness. Just plug 'em in the head, and we'll investigate next week. We know this guy is guilty because someone like him was definitely identified. Oh well, we thought he was guilty. He probably deserved it anyway.
"Some people just need killing": fat cat industrialists, famous people, etc. That would be what terrorists think. The distinction isn't that broad. I don't think we should go down that road. Next stop: Iraq, Lebanon.
Last time I checked, every form of execution is irreversible. That's the point. I'm not saying kill everyone, but like the movie said, "Some people just need killin" ie, murderers, rapists, that sort of thing. The whole court system is screwed up. I can go to prison for a longer time if I pirate a dvd than if I kill someone. If I'm rich enough, and I do the same, I'd probably just get house arrest.
If you screw up, you can't fix it. We know innocents have been released from death row (often with an unbelievable pride-driven fight from prosecutors), especially here in Texas. They were placed there wrongly. Kill them, and there's no way to correct that unacceptable mistake. Put them away for life, and while you can't give them back lost years, the State can (and occasionally does) find a way to compensate them.
Since we know wrongfully-convicted innocents have been discovered on death row, then we know that probability alone demonstrates we've executed innocents too. Sorry, I can't accept that. Period. You support whatever your conscience allows, though.
No reason for me to riff on the "screwed up justice system" meme. We all know that. Best way to work toward rectification is vote in leaders who demonstrate a willingness to apply common sense to the problem. That includes a complete cessation of incarcerating drug addicts IMO... for starters. Part of the libertarian credo, right?
/rant
barry99705
2007-06-27, 20:25
"Murderers, rapists, that sort of thing." That is exactly the scary attitude that bothers me. The casualness. Just plug 'em in the head, and we'll investigate next week. We know this guy is guilty because someone like him was definitely identified. Oh well, we thought he was guilty. He probably deserved it anyway.
"Some people just need killing": fat cat industrialists, famous people, etc. That would be what terrorists think. The distinction isn't that broad. I don't think we should go down that road. Next stop: Iraq, Lebanon.
If you read my previous posts, you'd have seen my comment on multiple eye witnesses, and self confessions. I'm not saying it's perfect, nothing is. Putting someone away for life doesn't fix anything either though. Those people have better living conditions than a lot of people I know, that aren't in jail. If they aren't guilty then why do we build "super-max" prisons? That's a whole lot of tax payers money being spent for people who have no regard for their fellow man. Call it callous, or cold, but I've already raised my hand and swore to protect my country. I've already been to places where they don't speak the same language as me, and most likely would kill me than help me.
If you read my previous posts, you'd have seen my comment on multiple eye witnesses, and self confessions. I'm not saying it's perfect, nothing is. Putting someone away for life doesn't fix anything either though. Those people have better living conditions than a lot of people I know, that aren't in jail. If they aren't guilty then why do we build "super-max" prisons? That's a whole lot of tax payers money being spent for people who have no regard for their fellow man. Call it callous, or cold, but I've already raised my hand and swore to protect my country. I've already been to places where they don't speak the same language as me, and most likely would kill me than help me.
Better living conditions? I'll take freedom, thanks. Besides, don't blame the solution for the implementation. Just because some prisoners aren't treated as harshly as you may prefer don't preach as if it HAS to be that way. Obviously life without parole shouldn't be a country club, but neither should it be inhumane torture IMO-- regardless of the crime committed. Let's as a society be better than the criminals, eh?
And again: it costs more to the taxpayers to execute someone than incarcerate them for life. Of course, if you prefer we abandon the current system of due process to cut cost then that's your choice... but do note that it would mean even MORE innocents executed. Could YOU be the one to execute an innocent person?
barry99705
2007-06-28, 00:45
Where did I say anything about getting rid of due process? I never said anything about torture either. I'm all about a fair trial, I don't even mind keeping people in prison for years and years. It's the people in super-max's that will never see life outside the fence, that riot because their cable tv went out that I'm talking about. People like Charlie Manson, why the hell is he still breathing? Better living conditions, yes, I know people who would take three guarantied meals a day and a roof over their head at the loss of their freedom. Could I be the one to execute someone that was tried and sentenced to death? You bet.
Manson is more valuable as an example than as a martyr.
Note the rise of suicide bombings and murder-suicides. What does it mean? For one thing, I think it means that people appreciate the ability to do something that prevents them from feeling regret or embarassment because of their crimes. The opposite of murder/suicide is murder/life imprisonment.
penguinbait
2007-06-28, 02:08
Where did I say anything about getting rid of due process? I never said anything about torture either. I'm all about a fair trial, I don't even mind keeping people in prison for years and years. It's the people in super-max's that will never see life outside the fence, that riot because their cable tv went out that I'm talking about. People like Charlie Manson, why the hell is he still breathing? Better living conditions, yes, I know people who would take three guarantied meals a day and a roof over their head at the lose of their freedom. Could I be the one to execute someone that was tried and sentenced to death? You bet.
There is no sense in trying to make someone understand your point of view, when they are so obviously not even listening to what you are saying.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680194149,00.html
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-flainmate0626nbjun26,0,5501877.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld
I suppose we should keep this guy around for another 60 years and give him some more medical treatment.
Could I be the one to execute someone that was tried and sentenced to death? You bet.
That wasn't what I asked.
Could you be the one who executed an innocent person?
yes or no.
There is no sense in trying to make someone understand your point of view, when they are so obviously not even listening to what you are saying.
My nominee for best unintended irony of the day. :D
The Hon. Rep. Dr. Ron Paul
We have to make this man president! :D
http://ronpaul2008.com
http://ronpaultv.com
http://ronpaulaudio.com
http://paulonpaper.com
http://ronpaulforums.com
I like Ron Paul's anti-interventionism as well as his wish to defang government. I'd read a few pieces by him on Counterpunch, where his iconoclasm surprisingly (for a Texas Republican) fit in with the left crowd there, and later began to find him on Antiwar.com too. Rare for an official, he's lucid and sane.
His fearlessness in the debates against the security state rabble was impressive, as was Mike Gravel's against his complacent peers in the Dem race. The common thread here is resistance against a harmful, failed status quo that the opportunistic candidates gladly support.
Along with Paul Craig Roberts, the ex-Reaganite who writes so well about our economic and military disasters, you could say Ron Paul is a beacon on the right (and that's a side of the political spectrum I usually abhor).
barry99705
2007-06-29, 02:29
That wasn't what I asked.
Could you be the one who executed an innocent person?
yes or no.
If he or she was tried and convicted then yes I could. If it was later found that they were really innocent, yea I'd probably feel bad for the family. I could still do it though. I'm sure my actions in other countries has caused the deaths of innocent people. They've also caused the deaths of very bad people, it comes with the job.
If he or she was tried and convicted then yes I could. If it was later found that they were really innocent, yea I'd probably feel bad for the family. I could still do it though. I'm sure my actions in other countries has caused the deaths of innocent people. They've also caused the deaths of very bad people, it comes with the job.
Fair enough.
Personally I couldn't be that cavalier if the person was later found to be innocent. But that's just me; I don't expect anyone else to share my sentiments.
I find it interesting, though, that other than that reply you tend to evade the issue of innocents being incarcerated, much less executed. Of course, it would make almost anyone uncomfortable, I imagine. Very sad thing IMO that it's happened, and will continue to happen. To say the least.
barry99705
2007-06-29, 03:30
Fair enough.
Personally I couldn't be that cavalier if the person was later found to be innocent. But that's just me; I don't expect anyone else to share my sentiments.
I find it interesting, though, that other than that reply you tend to evade the issue of innocents being incarcerated, much less executed. Of course, it would make almost anyone uncomfortable, I imagine. Very sad thing IMO that it's happened, and will continue to happen. To say the least.
I'm probably not the best person to ask these questions. I help teach a self defense class for when things get pretty ugly. We use real (unloaded) weapons and train to pull the trigger if necessary. We don't use training weapons, because just that, they aren't real, they don't look real. I've seen trained military "self defense" trainers totally freak out and forget their training when looking into a real gun barrel. I've seen law enforcement people get "killed" in class because their training prevents them from putting their fingers on the trigger. So yea, if I had to, I'll pull the trigger, but there's going to have to be a pretty good reason for it.
I wasn't trying to evade the fact that good people go to jail, or executed. It sucks that it happens, but like I said there has to be consequences. Putting murderers in a "time out" isn't good enough in my opinion. It sure as hell ain't working for the kids I see every day. I'm going to make a guess that you're either around my age or maybe a bit older. Remember when we were kids, you got in trouble in school, you went to the principals office. In there he'd introduce you to the paddle. Then they would call your parents, and it would suck worse once you got home. Whatever you did, you probably wouldn't do it a second time, sure as hell wouldn't do it a third. Now we can't touch them and they know it. I've seen kids talk to teachers with language George Carlin would wince to. What do they get? A time out. Big freaking deal, and that's what the kids think too. So now they grow up, kill some dude at the local quicky mart for a couple hundred bucks. What do they get? 10-20 years in prison, and most likely get paroled in 10. A freaking time out. I have a friend that's a sexual predator counselor at the local youth facility, that's right folks, we've got 6th graders that are rapists. His father in law is a guard at the prison across the street. So I get to hear all the "good" stories about what goes on inside. That's probably not helping my look on life either. That's the last of my rant, and comments for this thread. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind either, just throwing out my thoughts. I see, and understand your point as well.
I don't have any problems with self defense, or anyone teaching it. My stepdad is a judo blackbelt and expert marksman and made sure I learned how to take care of myself. I'm a fair shot with a .38 pistol and 30-06 rifle, so I'm not sure how that factors in...
I wasn't trying to evade the fact that good people go to jail, or executed. It sucks that it happens, but like I said there has to be consequences.
There's an old maxim, which I heavily subscribe to: "it's better to let ten guilty people go free than one innocent person go to jail". Why should there be irreparable "consequences" for an innocent person who is wrongly accused of murder?
Putting murderers in a "time out" isn't good enough in my opinion. It sure as hell ain't working for the kids I see every day.
But do you think capital punishment is really going to work as a deterrent either? Kids in gangs risk getting shot by each other, why are they going to be dissuaded from killing each other/others by the state wanting to kill them too?
I'll happily bow to your greater experience here; I've got the benefit of living in a country with relatively low murder/gun crime rates, and no death penalty.
Cheers,
Andrew
Your last statements made me think of something, Andrew. The US seems to suffer a social psychosis, one that manifests in certain crimes which occur here at higher rates than some other countries, even ones deemed "less civilized" (on the converse, I hope no one drags countries like Sudan into the argument). Perhaps its the very concept of a State that has no problems murdering its citizens that contributes to this... a fatalism that maybe doesn't cause but sure contributes toward "suicide by cop" and the other gang activities you mention. I wonder if any sociologists have looked into that, to see if the absence of a death penalty can contribute toward better overall attitudes among the citizenry. I'm betting the concept of a State that willingly kills its citizens weighs on our subconscious mind at the very least... and has some negative effects other than those intended.
Whee! A political debate! NOW we're off-topic! :)
If you want someone with ties to the Aryan Nations, I suppose so...
Ron Paul seems to be one of those libertarians that is influenced in passing by the militia-inspired obsessions that the federal government is evil because it'll never be white enough.
This is cheap mudslinging Drewv. Either support it with facts or stick it back where you pulled it from.
Ron Paul on racism:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”
Your assertion that he is 'associated' with the Aryan nation is a) baseless and b) guilt by association. He has also been 'associated' with 9/11 'truthers' because some of them attended a speech he held and later asked him some questions.
Better luck next time!
No, it isn't consistent. I won't go into abortion per se but the libertarian stance would be that the government has no right to interfere with the woman's right to have one as guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
Ah, but Roe v. Wade already denies that 'right' in the last trimester!
The libertarian stance hinges entirely upon the point in time at which you want to grant the right to life to the tissue/fetus/baby. As soon as you recognize it as a human, the right to life and the non-agression principle kicks-in.
Dr. Paul is an Ob/Gyn, meaning you have to grant him full medical expertise on the subject. As a protestant christian, he personally opposes abortion, but as a constitutional scholar, he realizes that the constitution does not clearly define the point at which life begins.
Because of this, he argues that the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to determine where the mother's right to privacy and self-determination ends and where the rights of the offspring begins. Seen in this light, Roe vs. Wade overstepped the constitutional authority of the SCOTUS.
Far from being a dogmatist or a fringe candidate on the abortion issue, his position is actually the pragmatic one; namely that because there is no national consensus on where life begins and because the constitution does not explicitly define that point, or grant that decision-making power to the Federal Government, it is a matter to be left to the States, as per the 10th Amendment! (All powers not granted to the Federal Government are left to states and individuals)
By the same token, the State interfering with activities such as suicide and willful euthanasia (I'm being purely objective on the subjects here) is also anathema to libertarianism.
I am not aware of Dr. Paul advocating that the Federal Government outlaw this. Can you cite legislation or quotes? Even if he did, it would not come close to being a deal-breaker for me, because his Big Issues are so much, much more important.
In addition, I find Paul's support for tax money diverted to faith-based initiatives as well as some of his other statements vis-a-vis religion to be seriously at odds with a true libertarian credo. I don't fault him for his beliefs; just the application.
The Constitution does not authorize Federal taxes to be spent on religious institutions or initiatives. What evidence is there that Dr. Paul has supported this?
Dr. Paul *has* promoted tax credits as a way to allow individuals to reduce their Federal Income Tax burden in some cases. His reasoning here is that the FIT on wages is of debatable legality. He has also proposed bills to grant tax breaks to donors of embryonic stem cells from placentas or spontaneous abortions. You can look at this as a subsidy if you want, but he sees it as a way to give people a choice to retain some of the money they rightfully should be able to keep anyway.
I won't talk anyone out of their own opinions, though. Just expressing mine. :D
Agree 100% I do wish to clear up misunderstandings though. Ron Paul is moving beyond the stage where they ignore him and moving into the stage where they begin to ridicule him. Insofar as I can help to clear up distortions or misconceptions, I'm all too happy to do-so.
Cheers,
Arnim, I once read a speech by Ron Paul defending Bush's faith-based funding initiative. IIRC he voted for it also (I'd have to check to be sure).
When I was first introduced to Paul, I liked what I read and heard. My disillusionment occurred as I dug a little deeper, especially into his stance on religious issues. But I have no intention of even trying to disabuse anyone of their support for the gentleman. There just seems to be this "Ron Paul is god" movement whose extreme proponents go nuts if anyone points out flaws (not saying you did that-- your comments are very sober). In many ways he sure beats the typical politician, though, I'll give him that!
Arnim, I once read a speech by Ron Paul defending Bush's faith-based funding initiative. IIRC he voted for it also
I'll look into it too. At this point i'm trying to find things Ron Paul voted for that i would disagree with and I've only found one bill that seems to be a problematic attempt to correct a thorny problem (activist Supreme Court decisions that extend beyond their constitutional bounds).
While we're at it, lets see what Mr Giuliani has to say about freedom...
http://i9.tinypic.com/4uyiu8l.png
...A little mash-up I did in the gimp today. :)
unique311
2007-07-05, 14:20
You should've probably do one for ron paul, man.
he is not better than guiliani.
talks a good game.
Think the american people had enough of the republican party for a while.
You got it! :D
http://i19.tinypic.com/4mt689k.png
(edit) I just had to post this comment from a NYT reader.
Dr. Paul’s record in congress shows that he is a man of principle.I live in Arizona but have often contacted Ron Paul’s office when concerned about liberty stealing legislation like the “Patriot Act”. My own representative won’t listen-he’s a neocon. Ron Paul is a true statesman. He can’t be bought by special interests and he won’t be corrupted. He is more interested in destroying the “ring of power” than wearing it.
— Posted by Dianne Golubski
New York Times - Ron Paul's Web of Support (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/ron-pauls-web-of-support/)
Yeah, I'd like to say I was shocked when I first read Guiliani's comment, but after Bush's "there ought to be limits to freedom" was met with little reaction (and some defense!) by the American public, I realized we decided at some point to welcome Big Brother with open arms. :/
Karel Jansens
2007-07-05, 15:55
You got it! :D
http://i19.tinypic.com/4mt689k.png
Somehow I'm missing the irony in that second one. :cool:
There was never a time in American history when government interference was absent, and there never will be. It's a balancing act. The main people to fear are people with nice simple ideological solutions. As with the Bush administration, or the Communists, those solutions never work. What does work is taking a pretty good system and shaping it to make it better.
There was never a time in American history when government interference was absent, and there never will be. It's a balancing act. The main people to fear are people with nice simple ideological solutions. As with the Bush administration, or the Communists, those solutions never work. What does work is taking a pretty good system and shaping it to make it better.
Absolutely agreed. But here in America we've decided to accept a gradual dumbing down of the general populace, which has no problem now accepting the notion of standardized testing as a cure to public educational ills, not to mention an impatience with realistic solutions. So people bought all the insanely simplistic Bushisms as solutions until they were beat over the head with failures long enough to realize that THOSE soundbites didn't translate into anything workable. They'll just look for different soundbites now. I'm not trying to sound elitist, but I encounter so much of this personally and see the results in pendulum-swinging polls to know it has to be pervasive.
/soapbox
Yes, I hope someone will come along.who can sell reallism to the American people. Ross Perot did for awhile.
It is a mistake, though, to pick the "perfect" poliitician and back him no matter how low he is in the polls. One of the attributes of perfection is the ability to win elections.
Disclosure: I've been a Hillary supporter for a long time.
Thing is, there IS a way to distill even complex issues down to simple sentences, but that takes an effective speaker, not some jingoistic blowhard looking for immediate gratification. Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton all had that gift. Perot did too to an extent-- I voted for him the first time just because I'm an iconoclast. Problem is, Perot scared the parties so much that they sealed up the "gaps" that allowed independents and third parties to have that good of a shot at the process. Bastards.
Problem is, Perot scared the parties so much that they sealed up the "gaps" that allowed independents and third parties to have that good of a shot at the process. Bastards.
Well put. If we had range voting, third parties might win a few seats in congress. But we need the MSM viewership to collapse completely and the kids who mainly use the internet grow up and dominate the demos.
For me it's Dr. Paul so hands-down. But then again, I can parse sentences with big words. I love how anti-politician he sounds - just like a grandfather explaining to a kid how things work.
Here's him eviscerating the NeoCons. 51 minutes.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4156174553630131591
Breakin news! WOOHOOOOO!
----------------------------------------------------
Press Release: Ron Paul Wins Big
Ron Paul Wins Big in First New Hampshire Straw Poll
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 7, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Presidential candidate Ron Paul today won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers (CNHT) straw poll at their annual picnic in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. Dr. Paul received 182 of 294 votes cast, or 65 percent. In second place was Rudy Giuliani with 24 votes, or 8 percent.
"Today's strong victory is further proof that Dr. Paul's message is resonating throughout New Hampshire," said campaign manager Lew Moore. "Dr. Paul is the only candidate in this race truly dedicated to smaller government and lower taxes for all Americans."
CNHT is a statewide, grassroots organization dedicated to reducing the size of government at all levels, stopping judicial activism, providing students and parents with a choice of educational opportunities, expanding job markets, and protecting property rights.
(edit)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Someone was asking for a video that shows Ron Paul's consistency? Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn4n0TXCR80
The "stopping judicial activism" and "expanding job markets" phrases are the ones that cause me concern.
What some deride as "judicial activism" I call judges doing their job, and executing judgment.
And I don't think markets should be expanded to any country that refuses to engage in fair and equitable trade on a level playing field. I'm no isolationist, but IMO the other extreme of sweatshops and zero regulations is harmful. I wish we'd craft policy that disallowed the sort of abuses employed by, say, China.
I also diverge from Libertarians on the subject of The Commons, which gets into property rights, but I'll spare you all the stump speech. :D
You get right to the meaty issues! Nice to chat with someone who doesn't divert into frivolous diversions.
The "stopping judicial activism" and "expanding job markets" phrases are the ones that cause me concern. What some deride as "judicial activism" I call judges doing their job, and executing judgment.
But federal court judgement is meant to be on the constitutionality of laws, and the interpretation of valid laws. "Legislative jurisprudence" is a good google term to learn about how the courts have begun to overstep their constitutional mandate. I won't get into cases here.
Many argue that modern times require a byzantine growth of regulation and judicial decisionmaking tantamount to legislation. While I won't argue the philosophical flaws of that standpoint, i'll just point out that a growing number of Americans who consider these issues carefully are coming to the conclusion that it represents a serious trend towards unconstitutional government leading to an incremental abrogation of our natural and constitutional rights.
Ron Paul's advocacy of 'limited constitutional government' reflects the founding principles of this nation - distrust of government. It is truer to the law than those who promote incremental growth in central state power to regulate and rule our lives.
And I don't think markets should be expanded to any country that refuses to engage in fair and equitable trade on a level playing field. I'm no isolationist, but IMO the other extreme of sweatshops and zero regulations is harmful. I wish we'd craft policy that disallowed the sort of abuses employed by, say, China.
Re: Harms of 'Free Trade'. Unfortunately we've had about 150 years of 'international free market trade' enforced at the barrel of a gun; for e.g. the entire south american continent in the 19th century and much of the world in the second half of the 20th. This is not free trade, but mercantilism. It is the cronyish collusion of corporations with government to subjugate other nations. So we haven't really *tried* free trade yet.
Re: Free Trade with oppressive regimes. I'll agree that there are legitimate concerns involved with trading with oppressive regimes. Regimes that do not allow petition of grievances against government. worker organizations and that do not allow the injured to sue for redress are a real problem. Fact is, we have a lot of work to do ourselves in this department.
The alternative to trading is to engage in isolationism (as we do vs N. Korea or Iran). Ron Paul is against this (putting the lie to those that call him isolationist). The real isolationists are those who want to use economic embargos to force policies upon other nations. The harms these isolationist policies cause can be vast. Think of the 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis who died of disease and malnutrition under 8 years of US-led sanctions (Thanks to Bush Sr, Clinton, Albright).
Abuses by US corporations in poor countries (sweatshops etc) do need to be addressed, but we must acknowledge first that it was government granted charters that enabled them to grow without boundaries, and without personal liability. (See the film 'The Corporation'). This is an area where i think most libertarian-oriented people have a big blind spot. The thing i tell them is that corporations have government granted priveleges - not natural ones - and that we as a society have every right to re-engineer corporate law to amend their legal status.
Just one radical idea: Should corporate law allow for the manufacturing and capital assets of a corporation chartered under US law to exist outside of US borders? It only takes a shift in assumptions to find favor with the idea that the operations of a US corporation be limited to regions under US law.
(I'm arguing this idea with some big-L Libertarians right now)
I also diverge from Libertarians on the subject of The Commons, which gets into property rights, but I'll spare you all the stump speech. :D
Yeah, "Tragedy of the Commons". Huge topic.
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.