Ron Paul’s phony populism

[SFC I-Side]

yup yup

 

[SFC I-Side]

god damm I hate the French

 

[ThaG]

You're just as delusional, if not more delusional, than those who are ignorant or apathetic to our current condition. You have disqualified your input by discouraging others from engaging in society. All of your walls of condescending text really should be in a separate thread, titled "ThaG's theory on why we should all kill ourselves." At least there, it would make a little more sense and be in context.

You haven't udnerstood anything of what I have been posting

 

[ThaG]

god damm I hate the French

Why? Inferiority complex?

 

[CaseyJones]

You haven't udnerstood anything of what I have been posting

Right, because when people disagree, it's because they "don't understand what you're saying."

 

[ThaG]

In this case this is precisely the case.

Your last post has very little to do with my worldview

 

[SFC I-Side]

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww das nasty brah

 

[CaseyJones]

We live in a society in which reality is dominated by external sources (people). Yet, still, non-decision makers such as you and I both seem to understand the peril we are in as long as we base our self worth on objects and consumption...so what makes you so sure we need someone else to tell us what is right? Seems to me that only invites absolute insanity via power/authority. Centralized power, planning, and control COULD lead us to a more stable way of living, but that is not likely. Until then, I say break this bitch up and let's figure this out for ourselves...as long as there is a "they" in it's current context, the "we" are way less likely and able to test, find, and educate solutions...and face it, "they" aren't interested in our solutions. It's up to us to take responsibility for ourselves, which is exactly what Ron Paul advocates...along with a smaller government and less centralized planning. Right now, the government is quite in the way of true progress, and I think we have a much better chance of making progress if we have some say so over what we do with ourselves. Your assertions that Ron Paul's domestic policy will bring corporate holocaust doesn't take into account how much more control of our lives we will have or that less regulations DOESN'T give those corporations the right to violate our individual rights. So, polluting the drinking water supply would NOT be something sanctioned/enabled by the government as it is now. "Free trade" would actually mean free trade for all of us, NOT special deals for certain countries or entities and legislation that circumvents the market in order to discourage competition. Smart ass motherfucking decision makers have ran this country into the ground. I think we have a much better chance making our own decisions, owning our own companies, forming our own groups, deciding our own curriculum, diet, level of consumption, etc.

 

[ThaG]

I don't know where you the idea that I am for government as it currently exists. All I told you is that society as a whole can not afford to allow uninformed individuals to do the decision making and that it should be the informed ones who are given that responsibility. This implies certain degree of centralization but government as they exist today do not meet that requirement at all.

 

[CaseyJones]

I don't know where you the idea that I am for government as it currently exists. All I told you is that society as a whole can not afford to allow uninformed individuals to do the decision making and that it should be the informed ones who are given that responsibility. This implies certain degree of centralization but government as they exist today do not meet that requirement at all.

The "informed" are already making the decisions. Who do you think runs this shit?

 

[ThaG]

The "informed" are already making the decisions. Who do you think runs this shit?

A bunch of morons.

The informed mostly do not have any real power - they invest their efforts into becoming experts while other invest theirs into inserting thmeselves into the power structure.

 

[CaseyJones]

A bunch of morons.

The informed mostly do not have any real power - they invest their efforts into becoming experts while other invest theirs into inserting thmeselves into the power structure.

Power is the problem, and experts aren't immune to it. Perhaps we should let a supercomputer run the country.

 

[ThaG]

That would be the ideal solution if only we could developed such a supercomputer. We're nowhere near close to that, unfortunately

 

[CaseyJones]

Here's the link I posted earlier. Terms like learning, knowledge, expert, etc. can quickly change given the various technologies that are being explored. Reality is fragile, you shouldn't be so pessimistic about the future.

Researchers Teach Subliminally; Matrix Learning not Far Away

For the first time ever, scientists from Boston University and ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, Japan have managed to use functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or fMRI to decode the process of learning.

Here’s the basic procedure:


Find someone capable of performing a task, for example juggling. Then stick them into an fMRI machine and have them imagine juggling. As they mentally go through how they do it, the scientists decode the brain patterns into something they can use later

Find another person. Stick them in an fMRI machine and have them try and imagine juggling. Decode as before, then compare.

Use neurofeedback by rewarding people for increasing the similarity in brain patterns.

Nothing else. By mimicking the state of the professional juggler, you are learning how to juggle.

Not Here Yet, but Soon

As the research stands to date, it isn’t capable of much. Rather than working with skills like juggling, the researchers relied on images so they could tie into the vision part of the brain, the part that they have managed to partially decode.
Nevertheless, they demonstrated that information could be taught using neurofeedback techniques. And it was effective even when people didn’t know they were learning.

The researchers are cautiously optimistic on the ability to automatically teach information. As said Mitsudo Kawato of ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories, "In theory, hypnosis or a type of automated learning is a potential outcome. However, in this study we confirmed the validity of our method only in visual perceptual learning. So we have to test if the method works in other types of learning in the future. At the same time, we have to be careful so that this method is not used in an unethical way."

http://www.fellowgeek.com/a-Researchers-Teach-Things-Subliminally-Matrix-Learning-not-Far-Away.html

 

[SFC I-Side]

i feel good about how this thread has finished up

 

[kon/AOV]

Great to see others on the siccness that are fully informed about ron paul and that will vote for him.

 

[ThaG]

I don't think this article goes deep enough into the issues but it exposes some of them well enough

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...dised-libertarianism-makes-freedom-oppression

Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. Throughout the rightwing press and blogosphere, among thinktanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the 1% subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous with injustice?

In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public healthcare; the government rips up our planning laws; big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor.

Rightwing libertarianism recognises few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. In the UK it is forcefully promoted by groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Policy Exchange. Their concept of freedom looks to me like nothing but a justification for greed.

So why have we been been so slow to challenge this concept of liberty? I believe that one of the reasons is as follows. The great political conflict of our age – between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side, and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other – has been mischaracterised as a clash between negative and positive freedoms. These freedoms were most clearly defined by Isaiah Berlin in his essay of 1958, Two Concepts of Liberty. It is a work of beauty: reading it is like listening to a gloriously crafted piece of music. I will try not to mangle it too badly.

Put briefly and crudely, negative freedom is the freedom to be or to act without interference from other people. Positive freedom is freedom from inhibition: it's the power gained by transcending social or psychological constraints. Berlin explained how positive freedom had been abused by tyrannies, particularly by the Soviet Union. It portrayed its brutal governance as the empowerment of the people, who could achieve a higher freedom by subordinating themselves to a collective single will.

Rightwing libertarians claim that greens and social justice campaigners are closet communists trying to resurrect Soviet conceptions of positive freedom. In reality, the battle mostly consists of a clash between negative freedoms.

As Berlin noted: "No man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'." So, he argued, some people's freedom must sometimes be curtailed "to secure the freedom of others". In other words, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The negative freedom not to have our noses punched is the freedom that green and social justice campaigns, exemplified by the Occupy movement, exist to defend.

Berlin also shows that freedom can intrude on other values, such as justice, equality or human happiness. "If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral." It follows that the state should impose legal restraints on freedoms that interfere with other people's freedoms – or on freedoms which conflict with justice and humanity.

These conflicts of negative freedom were summarised in one of the greatest poems of the 19th century, which could be seen as the founding document of British environmentalism. In The Fallen Elm, John Clare describes the felling of the tree he loved, presumably by his landlord, that grew beside his home. "Self-interest saw thee stand in freedom's ways / So thy old shadow must a tyrant be. / Thou'st heard the knave, abusing those in power, / Bawl freedom loud and then oppress the free."

The landlord was exercising his freedom to cut the tree down. In doing so, he was intruding on Clare's freedom to delight in the tree, whose existence enhanced his life. The landlord justifies this destruction by characterising the tree as an impediment to freedom – his freedom, which he conflates with the general liberty of humankind. Without the involvement of the state (which today might take the form of a tree preservation order) the powerful man could trample the pleasures of the powerless man. Clare then compares the felling of the tree with further intrusions on his liberty. "Such was thy ruin, music-making elm; / The right of freedom was to injure thine: / As thou wert served, so would they overwhelm / In freedom's name the little that is mine."

But rightwing libertarians do not recognise this conflict. They speak, like Clare's landlord, as if the same freedom affects everybody in the same way. They assert their freedom to pollute, exploit, even – among the gun nuts – to kill, as if these were fundamental human rights. They characterise any attempt to restrain them as tyranny. They refuse to see that there is a clash between the freedom of the pike and the freedom of the minnow.

Last week, on an internet radio channel called The Fifth Column, I debated climate change with Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas, one of the rightwing libertarian groups that rose from the ashes of the Revolutionary Communist party. Fox is a feared interrogator on the BBC show The Moral Maze. Yet when I asked her a simple question – "do you accept that some people's freedoms intrude upon other people's freedoms?" – I saw an ideology shatter like a windscreen. I used the example of a Romanian lead-smelting plant I had visited in 2000, whose freedom to pollute is shortening the lives of its neighbours. Surely the plant should be regulated in order to enhance the negative freedoms – freedom from pollution, freedom from poisoning – of its neighbours? She tried several times to answer it, but nothing coherent emerged which would not send her crashing through the mirror of her philosophy.

Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardised, one-eyed philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrongfoot justice by pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned "freedom" into an instrument of oppression.

 

[CaseyJones]

You seem to operate under the impression that Libertarians believe in the right of corporations to pollute endlessly at will. That is nonsense, and perhaps you should take a look at the portions I have highlighted, then read the whole platform.

Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons,
homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held
by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights
of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without
victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired
property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by
any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment
to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the
ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each
person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a
legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.


2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository
institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money
any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and
unconstitutional legal tender laws.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of
individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want,
the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of
their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health
insurance across state lines.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would
phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private
voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts
of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and
civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as
policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter
threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil
liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time
of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be
subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to
keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the
government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should
emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding
foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and
defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of
terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape
from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the
crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human
as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into
our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

 

[ThaG]

This will probably be the 10th time I say this in Ron Paul threads, but I will repeat it once again - libertarianism is a philosophy founded on complete disregard for the realities of human nature and the natural world. And what you posted illustrates it very nicely

This is assuming that those, who label themselves libertarians, actually mean what libertarianism preaches on the surface, which, if judged by their actions, is not at all always the case

A few of these points demonstrate it perfectly

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

The above does not contain a single word about discrimination of individuals by other individuals - the role of government is to protect individuals from discrimination by others and if you take that away, the fundamentalist Christians are free to discriminate gays and women in whatever way they want

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Another one that sounds good on the surface but is disastrous in practice. A typical situation is the 15-year old girl with deeply religious parents who gets pregannt and has no way to have an abortion without their knowledge because she can't pay. If the government does not provide free abortion services, she is stuck with having the kid and ruining her whole life.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired
property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by
any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment
to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the
ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

There is a direct correlation between the free availability of firearms and the murder rate. The US is the major outlier among industrialized countries. Because you can make the argument that individuals are free to have firearms to protect themselves, but once they have them nothing prevents them from using them as an attack weapon. Which is what many do.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each
person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a
legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Yet the relaxation of government regulation was what caused the current crisis and its nonexistence was what caused the Great Depression

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

Property as a concept does not even exist in many human societies (which themselves don't exist anymore because they were exterminated by the Europeans). For a variety of behavioral and environmental reasons, property must cease to exist as a concept in our society too, if it is to continue its existence.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

1. The last sentence is a climate change denialism position.
2. If you leave it to individuals to protect the environment to protect the environment, what you will get is total destruction of it. We know that because there is a very rich track record in which pretty much nothing else can be seen. Because for the individuals to consciously protect the environment, individual understanding why this is needed by every single person in society is needed. It does not take that many people to wreck the environment. But what we have in practice is mass ecological illiteracy .

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

Continued from above - another recipe for disaster and direct support for fossil fuel lobbies. It takes many decades to retool the economy to run on a different energy source - how exactly are inviduals agents, ignorant of the bigger picture going to do that on time if their thinking horizon is several months into the future? And how exactly are they going to organize the orderly contraction of said economy if there is no such source to swtich to, which they are completely unaware of either?

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

The disabled, the economically disadvantaged, the discriminated, the elderly, etc, they all be damned....

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

That would work if there was a symmetry in the power distribution. In reality there isn't.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

1. Education is not a good to be sold. You have to be a complete ignoramus yourself to think it should be left to the free market - the only thing the free market can achieve is completely wreck it (which is, again, what has been happening in practice, if you look at the state of higher education for example)

2. Parents do not have the right to brainwash their children. It's actually a violation of their children's freedom

2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of
individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want,
the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of
their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health
insurance across state lines.

The right to live is not a good either.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would
phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private
voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts
of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and
civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

Simply laughable

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape
from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the
crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human
as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into
our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

The above applied in practice is the reason why all the former US jobs are now in China.

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

1.See above. Government should not discriminate, but what about protection from discrimination?

2. Again, parents should not be allowed to brainwash their kids

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

The only way to prevent the government from becoming a tool in the hands of the rich few is to ban campaign donations altogether. Otherwise you get what we have now. Have a special state-sponsored TV channel dedicated to debates between the candidates, require some minimal number of signatures in support of a candidate to avoid hacing 10000 bozos running for seat and then let the best arguments decide. The above goes in exactly the opposite direction.

 

[CaseyJones]

This will probably be the 10th time I say this in Ron Paul threads, but I will repeat it once again - libertarianism is a philosophy founded on complete disregard for the realities of human nature and the natural world. And what you posted illustrates it very nicely

This is assuming that those, who label themselves libertarians, actually mean what libertarianism preaches on the surface, which, if judged by their actions, is not at all always the case

A few of these points demonstrate it perfectly



The above does not contain a single word about discrimination of individuals by other individuals - the role of government is to protect individuals from discrimination by others and if you take that away, the fundamentalist Christians are free to discriminate gays and women in whatever way they want

I don't know if you noticed, but our entire system is basically institutionally racist. And, even under the current circumstances, racism and prejudices based on religious theology is at the heart of our political system, especially the election cycle. We're racist, homophobic, etc...laws aren't stopping that one bit...in fact, some of our laws and policies are inherently prejudice.



Another one that sounds good on the surface but is disastrous in practice. A typical situation is the 15-year old girl with deeply religious parents who gets pregannt and has no way to have an abortion without their knowledge because she can't pay. If the government does not provide free abortion services, she is stuck with having the kid and ruining her whole life.

If abortion was legal, then abortions wouldn't be $500. There would be more than 1 or two abortion clinics per state, more practices that perform abortions, and other forms of prevention/early term abortion would be more readily available.


There is a direct correlation between the free availability of firearms and the murder rate. The US is the major outlier among industrialized countries. Because you can make the argument that individuals are free to have firearms to protect themselves, but once they have them nothing prevents them from using them as an attack weapon. Which is what many do.

The problem is not legal gun ownership/rights. There a huge industry that intentionally manufactures more guns than can legally be sold. Also, the purpose of a gun is for protection...if you think having centralized power without this simple (and actually quite primative, in comparison) hedge against tyranny is a good idea...go move to Mexico...they aren't allowed to have guns and they are MUCH SAFER THAN US, RIGHT?



Yet the relaxation of government regulation was what caused the current crisis and its nonexistence was what caused the Great Depression

No, the forced inter-dependancy between government and big-private financial institutions and not allowing prices to reflect the will of the market caused The Great Depression...and every other downturn that would classify as a depression. BIG GOVERNMENT.



Property as a concept does not even exist in many human societies (which themselves don't exist anymore because they were exterminated by the Europeans). For a variety of behavioral and environmental reasons, property must cease to exist as a concept in our society too, if it is to continue its existence.

Fuck that, you aren't entitled to attach a structure on the side of my house in which to house your livestock...I don't want to live in or around animals or SMELL SHIT WHEN I EAT. NO, you cannot come into the place where I keep my family and smash my coffee pot, kidnap my cat, or break my windows out! See? +1 for property rights.


1. The last sentence is a climate change denialism position.

Wrong. It leaves that position up to individuals and states. Nobody wants to live in a toxic shithole, bro...as long as individual property rights are protected by our government, nobody would be free to pollute MY AIR THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO BREATHE...you see how this neutral position could potentially unravel the entire petro-based reality? As soon as people en mass started rejecting these notions, a constitutional government would be forced to shut these entities down as they are a violation of the rights of other individuals.

2. If you leave it to individuals to protect the environment to protect the environment, what you will get is total destruction of it. We know that because there is a very rich track record in which pretty much nothing else can be seen. Because for the individuals to consciously protect the environment, individual understanding why this is needed by every single person in society is needed. It does not take that many people to wreck the environment. But what we have in practice is mass ecological illiteracy.

This is bullshit also...like I said...nobody wants poison in their drinking water...it's the perfect environmental position. Simple, yet very clear that individuals' rights will not be violated for the sake of job creation, economic growth, special interests, or any other reason.


Continued from above - another recipe for disaster and direct support for fossil fuel lobbies. It takes many decades to retool the economy to run on a different energy source - how exactly are inviduals agents, ignorant of the bigger picture going to do that on time if their thinking horizon is several months into the future? And how exactly are they going to organize the orderly contraction of said economy if there is no such source to swtich to, which they are completely unaware of either?

What is this utter douchebaggery, brosef? People are well aware that there's enough sunlight, wind, and hydro power to fuel oure needs responsibly. Current subsidies and policies only empower fossil fuel barons and stifle competition from alternative energy companies. A huge portion of the functioning population believe that man-made global warming is a real threat...it seems like the plutocracy is bound and determined to milk the very last drop of oil before allowing us to switch. This is all the result of centralized planning and BIG GOVERNMENT. When you centralize planning, the temptation to go BIG is always going to invite corruption.



The disabled, the economically disadvantaged, the discriminated, the elderly, etc, they all be damned....

They all be damned if you say so. I'm willing to commit to take care of my family, friends, and community. Are you?


That would work if there was a symmetry in the power distribution. In reality there isn't.

If Libertarian principles were applied to our democracy as the founders intended, then power would be equally distributed right where it is supposed to be...amongst us...so that we may solve our own problems.


1. Education is not a good to be sold. You have to be a complete ignoramus yourself to think it should be left to the free market - the only thing the free market can achieve is completely wreck it (which is, again, what has been happening in practice, if you look at the state of higher education for example)

The free market means families, neighborhood, counties, municipalities, etc. would ALL have the freedom to provide voluntary education which contains the curriculum of their choosing. Free market does not apply to corporations only...when education is mandated from a centralized entity, we learn what THEY WANT US TO LEARN.

2. Parents do not have the right to brainwash their children. It's actually a violation of their children's freedom

But governments do? FUCK THAT, BREAUX.



The right to live is not a good either.

It most certainly is under the current system. Just look at the 3rd world. Under any centralized power structure, you are going to see things like ethnic cleansing, banana republics, despots, slave and child labor. As it stands, we are completely dependent on slave labor for our society to function. We don't even have a choice whether or not to contribute to the global slave trade without going to great lengths and making great sacrifices...red tape, government subsidies, and social stigmas perpetuated by the CENTRALIZED MEDIA...all stand in our way.


Simply laughable



The above applied in practice is the reason why all the former US jobs are now in China.

No, the reason why all our jobs are in China is because all of our "free trade agreements" are designed to create advantages for certain corporate entities. True free trade means we'd be free to do business with any country for any reason we deemed prudent...including human rights. We currently have limited choice, thanks to our "free trade agreements" that only benefit the job/business/labor killing, mega-lobbying Wal-Mart.



1.See above. Government should not discriminate, but what about protection from discrimination?

Government discrimination should be illegal. You can't regulate thoughts, feelings, morals, etc...it just doesn't work that way. Does racism and discrimination exist? Yes. Is a law going to stop it? Hasn't worked with drugs, abortion, racial profiling, sentencing disparities, incarceration rates, etc...and MOST OF THOSE ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL OR REGULATED.

2. Again, parents should not be allowed to brainwash their kids

Again, governments should?


The only way to prevent the government from becoming a tool in the hands of the rich few is to ban campaign donations altogether. Otherwise you get what we have now. Have a special state-sponsored TV channel dedicated to debates between the candidates, require some minimal number of signatures in support of a candidate to avoid hacing 10000 bozos running for seat and then let the best arguments decide. The above goes in exactly the opposite direction.

If you think that's the singular solution that will lead to your obviously completely ambiguous Utopian society free of money, possessions, etc. then you are as delusional as I thought you were. Grow a fucking pair, take some responsibility for yourself and your family and your community and create changes that you want to see.

This is you, breaux...

You want to live in a bubble where you and your world are perfectly safe and free will is replaced within restraint and everything is perfect, thanks to a panel of experts who probably chime in and dictate their expertise on your every action. It will never happen any other way than at the end of a gun and tyranny.

Citing center-left positions on Libertarianism is hardly anything groundbreaking intellectually, especially for someone clearly intellectually superior to and more objective than the rest of us...as a foreigner and all. The people who hold those positions are the people clinging onto hegemony for dear life, oppressing the world, abusing their power, extracting huge amounts of personal wealth doing the bidding of the very establishment which you so clearly believe to be driving us off the cliff with no end in sight. The worst thing that could possibly happen to the people who drive and manipulate our reality is that power would be turned over to the citizens of this planet...

You seem to approach all political and economic arguments with condescending philosophical responses and all philosophical arguments with political and economic responses. Your philosophy seems absolutely depressing and your politics and economics seem to mimick the center-left establishment...ei the slave masters.

Put your big girl britches on and have some fucking respect for your NATURE, which very much includes FREE WILL. And have some faith in your fellow humans...they are you and you are them...a biological entity...don't be a pessimistic cancer on humanity.