Ron Paul

[progressiveman1]

A lot I read from liberatarians (or whatever they call themselves) and Ron Paul's supporters are more about fighting this invisible monster they call "corporacty" or "corporate oligarchy" or whatever.

I think it's a misinterpretation of Ron Paul then. I haven't seen him say anything about (wrongfully) punishing corporate businesses, even with oil companies. He just doesn't like corporatism- gov't subsidizing businesses.

If someone doesn't mind(since I don't want to read through this whole thread), will you explain briefly why it would be a bad idea for an Objectivist(or anyone, I guess) to vote for Ron Paul, if he had a chance at being elected?

[Miles White]

I think it's a misinterpretation of Ron Paul then. I haven't seen him say anything about (wrongfully) punishing corporate businesses, even with oil companies. He just doesn't like corporatism- gov't subsidizing businesses.

If someone doesn't mind(since I don't want to read through this whole thread), will you explain briefly why it would be a bad idea for an Objectivist(or anyone, I guess) to vote for Ron Paul, if he had a chance at being elected?

The first reason would be the fact that at this point in the election, he doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination. So supporting his presidential bid would be futile.

The second reason would be his less-than-desirable, do nothing foreign policy of pacifism and isolationism that would lead to the loss of an ally (Israel). It would not be wise at all to be loosing an ally in a time where we need them most in order to crush Islam.

The third reason would be his stance of immigration (which is inherently anti-free trade), and of corse his "pro-life" stances which no one who identifies themselves as an Objectivist should be endorsing. Period.

[progressiveman1]

The third reason would be his stance of immigration (which is inherently anti-free trade),

He voted yes on building a 700 mile fence around the borders of Mexico, because he doesn't like that illegals are benefiting from our social programs without paying. I do think the better solution would be for a more liberal immigration policy, but I can't find anything else that talks about his anti-immigration views.

[FeatherFall]

If someone doesn't mind(since I don't want to read through this whole thread), will you explain briefly why it would be a bad idea for an Objectivist(or anyone, I guess) to vote for Ron Paul, if he had a chance at being elected?

It is appropriate to vote for a candidate with no chance of winning if that vote can be leveraged to change the policies of those who might actually win. In order for this to work, the candidate you are voting for must have a set of consistent principles that you agree with.

I imagine Ron Paul considers "freedom" to be his central political principle. Unfortunately, this ideal floats in his mind on a cloud without proper philosophic support. So, candidates with a legitimate chance of winning could interpret his idea of "freedom" to mean the freedom of Americans to be rid of dirty foreigners, the freedom of a fetus to live inside of an unwilling host and the freedom of state sponsors of terror to continue with business as usual.

If Ron Paul gets enough votes to swing the election one way or another, the major parties will not get a message about individual rights. If they are influenced, they will be free to pick and choose from a set of concrete stances, all the while perpetuating the fraud that they are now more "pro-freedom".

Edited June 13, 2008 by FeatherFall

[ruveyn ben yosef]

The contention that the war against Iraq wasn't just because Iraq posed no threat to the US is absurd. Saddam attacked US oil interests in Kuwait, tried to have a US president assassinated, and continually fired at US military guarding the "no-fly" zone. He allowed Abdul ar-Rahman Yasin, who made the bombs for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to hide in Iraq and operate out of an Iraqi government office. I should also note that the fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator who employed chemical weapons in the past and hindered UN inspectors at every step was reason enough to consider him an enormous threat to US security.

In 1987 one of Saddam's planes fire two Exocet missiles into the U.S.S. Stark killing 37 men aboard. The U.S. did nothing about it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31)

ruveyn

[OneShotKi11]

The first reason would be the fact that at this point in the election, he doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination. So supporting his presidential bid would be futile.

The second reason would be his less-than-desirable, do nothing foreign policy of pacifism and isolationismthat would lead to the loss of an ally (Israel). It would not be wise at all to be loosing an ally in a time where we need them most in order to crush Islam.

The third reason would be his stance of immigration (which is inherently anti-free trade), and of corse his "pro-life" stances which no one who identifies themselves as an Objectivist should be endorsing. Period.

From my understanding no man/women has a chance if nobody votes for him/her ( Dam Hillery).

SO were at a time where we need to crush Islam? Please tell me you mis stated something. I dont believe we are fighting Islam, but i might be wrong.

Ron Paul does not in any way shape or form support isolationism, unless infact you consider isolationism pulling our troops from half the world. Then again if thats what you considered it then you would be dead wrong, and that would be your own misinterpretation not ours.

Please forgive me but i must quote good ol' WIKI for the momment:

Isolationism

"foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.

2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all people."

Your third reason for not liking Ron Paul is pure comedy. So an individual against illegal immigration must be against free trade. From his voting record as well as publicly addressed statements Ron Paul is all for FREE-TRADE. He is against illegal immigration because of ECONOMIC reasons.

Allow me to now quote DR. Paul if i may:

"If economy were good, there'd be no immigration problem."

Now i could further school you on what this means but i am not getting paid, nor am i your adviser. It is now up to you to research the topic in order to be able to properly debate it in future circumstances.

As for his stances on "pro-life" he has many times clearly stated that his stance does not matter. Even though he doesnt support abortion he says the topic isnt really in his hands. It is not something he is going to handle and would leave it up to the states to deal with themselves. What you should really worry about in a Ron Paul presidency is not Dr. Paul, but your state and city representative's and their abilities to make proper decisions on such matters.

I for one do not support abortion but really could careless if its allowed or not.

I see it as non important issue when running for a presidential bid, unless the individual is clearly gone mad about the topic i wont care if he supports it or disagrees with it.

I hope i was able to provide enough information to allow you to understand how extremely wrong you were with your statements regarding Ron Paul.

Any further information can be found here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Im sure this wont be any help because most people base there information on what they hear talk shows hosts comment on, or what they see their fellow forums posters state on an issue. It is rare that i see an individual who does the actual research...

Jeremy

[Miles White]

SO were at a time where we need to crush Islam? Please tell me you mis stated something. I dont believe we are fighting Islam, but i might be wrong.

You don't think Islam is a threat to our freedom after the murders of Theo Van Gogh or Pim Fortuyn for performing the simple act of speaking out against it? Not to mention the death warrant still upon Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I don't see Christians or Jews murdering innocent lives simply because they weren't Christian or Jewish enough, and don't think that it's just a group of terrorists making a harmless religion look bad either, their irrationality and hostility towards reason and civilization is written down within their own holy documents. The only Islamic people who don't believe in murder as a legitimate means of imposing their goals, are the Islamic people who aren't extreme enough in their views. To those who do hold more liberalized Islamic views, I only hope that there is still a chance to convince them to give it up. You should watch the incredible video "Fitna" made by dutch politician Gert Wilder for further information about this threat. Islam is a religion inherently bent upon destroying western culture and human progress as we know it. We cannot afford to elect leaders who favor their stagnation over our progress.

From his voting record as well as publicly addressed statements Ron Paul is all for FREE-TRADE. He is against illegal immigration because of ECONOMIC reasons.

Sorry, but this made me laugh.

Now i could further school you on what this means but i am not getting paid, nor am i your adviser. It is now up to you to research the topic in order to be able to properly debate it in future circumstances.

I've done enough research on him thank you. As a matter in fact the more research I did, the more flaws I found in his entire "philosophy".

As for his stances on "pro-life" he has many times clearly stated that his stance does not matter.

Thats why he support overturning Roe vs. Wade right? By what right do you think you have to tell a woman what to do with her own body anyway?

I hope i was able to provide enough information to allow you to understand how extremely wrong you were with your statements regarding Ron Paul.

Neither was I "extremely" nor "wrong" with any of my statements that I still stand by.

Any further information can be found here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

These two facts, I found exceptionally horrifying about him:

Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it's been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That's not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I'm making. We're all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order.

Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:

H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

Proposed Legislation:

H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha)

H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson)

S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond)

H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham)

H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts)

H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.)

[OneShotKi11]

Sorry, but this made me laugh.

Could you then please show me evidence to support your statement? I provided i link for you to read that provided some of his voting record and clearly states he is for Free-trade. I could provide several video clips that he openly states his policies and that he is all for Trade with countries.

Truthfully you can laugh all you want because i was banging my head against my computer desk when i seen another person lacking in knowledge of the definition of Isolationism. Yet you still felt it was proper to throw around during your discussions.

Is that not embarrassing to you? I would hate to get called out on something so simple as a definition.

I've done enough research on him thank you. As a matter in fact the more research I did, the more flaws I found in his entire "philosophy".

Please explain...

Thats why he support overturning Roe vs. Wade right? By what right do you think you have to tell a woman what to do with her own body anyway?

I thought i answered this already? Yes, he does with his Congressional seat support overturning ROE vs WADE. Its his personal belief stemming from the fact he was a doctor that life starts at conception. As President he has stated that it wouldnt be left in his hands. This means that his personal belief wouldnt really affect the law of the land, but instead it would be left up to the states and the people.

So allow me to reiterate that what he thinks on the matter wouldnt really effect the policy with his presidency. YOur worries would have to lay with your state officials. Now if thats what your actually worried about thats a whole other argument.

Another personal comment from me is, i feel if women dont want to have babies dont have sex. They invite themselves to bare children then dont want the responsibility when it happens. It sort of reminds me of a landlord going through the entire procedure for tenants to move in, and then once they do want to throw them out on the street without reason, because they can do what they want with their land.

Is that fair? :lol:

Does the father get no say in the situation? For some reason i am lead to believe that it might be half his child in that tummy.

That was just a food for thought question.

Again this topic isnt even a relevant issue to me when looking at who im going to vote for as next president.

Neither was I "extremely" nor "wrong" with any of my statements that I still stand by.

I noticed that your entire post failed to provide me with any information and barely did anything more then point at me and say im wrong. You fail to admit you were wrong about the meaning of Isolationism. I clearly provided the accurate meaning for you so there is no defending your stance.

With around 2 million Muslims living in America today i cant see how you could say we are at war with Islam itself. That is a completely ignorant thing to say and alone has made me believe i jumped into a debate with an individual who cant be reasoned with, or lacks reason altogether.

If we were at war with Islam i think having 2 million Muslims freely living among us would be a severe problem.

I then went to explain his stance on immigration, a stance that revolves around our economy. Somewhere you were able to interpret that because an individual is against illegal immigration (Not to be confused with perfectly legal immigration which he is all for) he must be "inherently anti-free trade". That again is a silly comment and i will continue to ask you to provide some sort of explanation to your statement.

Please, within your explanation provide me with information on how being against immigrants illegally sneaking into our country, not paying taxs, stealing American jobs, then using up free American services is "inherently anti-free trade". That looks totally like an economic issue if you ask me.....

These two facts, I found exceptionally horrifying about him:

Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it's academic to talk about civil liberties if you don't talk about the true protection of all life. So if you're going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it's been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That's not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I'm making. We're all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order.

Again his personal belief is overthrown by the fact that he openly says he would leave it up to the states.

"If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order."

Which can also be read as:

If a state law says "abortion is legal," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order.

I guess your just against your state having the option to decide if they believe it should be legal or not.

Paul co-sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:

H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

Proposed Legislation:

H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha)

H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson)

S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond)

H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham)

H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts)

H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.)

What is wrong with allowing any individual to pray in school or any other public area if it is part of there religious beliefs, and is not interfering with anyone else? Nowhere is it going to force your child to pray in school. It merely stated it wouldnt infringe on an individuals right to pray if they wanted to.

Please, when you make a post provide comments that explain your thought process. Right now i see a block of text that stated Ron Pauls beliefs, yet no explanation as to what is wrong with them. Almost as if you are scared to say anything else regarding the matter and are leaving it up to other readers to decipherer for you, and thus allowing them to come of with their own interpretation for you.

I dont know what your trying to get at with your post.

Are you against religion anywhere in America? Are you against religion being done in public areas? Are you against religion being seen in public schools?

Are you against the Islamic religion?

You must make a stance when you are debating.

Now, i feel i have answered most of your comments without the slick information less one liners you provided for me. I would like it if you returned the courtesy.

Edited June 18, 2008 by OneShotKi11

[ers]

This isn't my discussion, but you said...

If we were at war with Islam i think having 2 million Muslims freely living among us would be a severe problem.

It is a severe problem. Go read the Koran. Then read the Hadiths. Islam is a death cult bent on world domination. They will destroy our civilization if we do nothing.

There is a wonderful chapter in The End of Faith by Sam Harris called "The problem with Islam". I suggest you at least read this chapter of his book as well.

[softwareNerd]

Please, within your explanation provide me with information on how being against immigrants illegally sneaking into our country, not paying taxs, stealing American jobs, then using up free American services is "inherently anti-free trade".

Employees do not have a property right to their jobs. That is a socialist concept. Therefore, jobs can never be stolen. The jobs at which immigrants work are granted to them by their employers. The only free-trade approach to this issue is to call for a removal of all immigration quotas.

Libertarians are able to see this point when it comes to drugs. I don't see them campaigning against illegal drugs. Instead, they call for legalization. The same with immigration.

[Miles White]

Could you then please show me evidence to support your statement? I provided i link for you to read that provided some of his voting record and clearly states he is for Free-trade. I could provide several video clips that he openly states his policies and that he is all for Trade with countries.

I think reading the state which I laughed at is rather self evident.

Truthfully you can laugh all you want because i was banging my head against my computer desk when i seen another person lacking in knowledge of the definition of Isolationism. Yet you still felt it was proper to throw around during your discussions.

Is that not embarrassing to you? I would hate to get called out on something so simple as a definition.

Wether he's an "Isolationist" or a "Pacifist" (or what ever title you prefer) doesn't matter. The fact that does however is that his foreign policy is terrible as I've addressed in the preceding post. Squandering over which part of his foreign policy is being discussed is a useless and petty argument that tries to distract those whom you try and convert from understanding the bigger picture.

I thought i answered this already? Yes, he does with his Congressional seat support overturning ROE vs WADE. Its his personal belief stemming from the fact he was a doctor that life starts at conception. As President he has stated that it wouldnt be left in his hands. This means that his personal belief wouldnt really affect the law of the land, but instead it would be left up to the states and the people.

Personal or not, HE STILL SUPPORTS IT POLITICALLY. Otherwise he would not have purposed bills for it. What if I ran for president and ran on a strict anti alcohol campaign? Oh don't worry, I personally love drinking the stuff, I'm just against it politically. That makes everything so much better now doesn't it?

So allow me to reiterate that what he thinks on the matter wouldnt really effect the policy with his presidency. YOur worries would have to lay with your state officials. Now if thats what your actually worried about thats a whole other argument.

I'm not worried about being able to get an abortion. I'm not even a woman. My worry is a deeper, fundamental ethical issue not a narrow minded pragmatic one. I'll repeat again, "BY WHAT RIGHT DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO TELL A WOMAN WHAT TO DO WITH HER OWN BODY?"

Another personal comment from me is, i feel if women dont want to have babies dont have sex. They invite themselves to bare children then dont want the responsibility when it happens. It sort of reminds me of a landlord going through the entire procedure for tenants to move in, and then once they do want to throw them out on the street without reason, because they can do what they want with their land.

Is that fair? :lol:

I would be curious to see how you would react if you meet someone who was raped. By the way, your last example is perfectly justified. A landlord most certainly can and should evict customers if he has a good reason for it. If he doesn't, then he should still be aloud to do it. He'll just have to suffer the consequences of not having anymore customers.

Does the father get no say in the situation? For some reason i am lead to believe that it might be half his child in that tummy.

Maybe if fathers could get pregnant, otherwise no. The fetus is attached to the woman's body, ergo it is her property not yours.

That is a completely ignorant thing to say and alone has made me believe i jumped into a debate with an individual who cant be reasoned with, or lacks reason altogether.

This coming from a man who thinks that a womens fetus is their property and that landlords shouldn't be aloud to evict customers.

I know what my convictions are, and it'll take a little more than name calling to change that. Even if thats how your use to executing debates.

If we were at war with Islam i think having 2 million Muslims freely living among us would be a severe problem.

Yes. It is.

Again his personal belief is overthrown by the fact that he openly says he would leave it up to the states.

"If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order."

Which can also be read as:

If a state law says "abortion is legal," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order.

I guess your just against your state having the option to decide if they believe it should be legal or not.

As I've said before, thats not good enough. Should the states be alloud to hold slaves too? Why not? As long as it's not being done by the Federal government it has to be fine right? You're still ignoring the importance for law to be objective. To validate wether a single act is right or wrong. The governments only purpose behind it's establishment is to act as a protector of rights, how well do you think they'll be protecting rights if the Federal government allows the states to enslave people? The biggest thing that annoys me most about Republicans is their blind misunderstanding of States rights vs. Individual rights. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

What is wrong with allowing any individual to pray in school or any other public area if it is part of there religious beliefs.

What if it's not?

Nowhere is it going to force your child to pray in school. It merely stated it wouldnt infringe on an individuals right to pray if they wanted to.

So the teachers are going to leave the room with a couple students to pray outside while atheist students get left in class and do nothing all that time. Kinda sounds like a punishment for being an atheist if you ask me. There is also that little thing called a First Amendment which says that "There shall be no established religion." Not there shall be no established religion except in public schools. Even though many of you fundamentalists like to pretend that it'll go away if you just ignore it, similar to how they pretend that God will always be there to keep you safe until a disaster occurs, then it's our own fault for being sinners.

Please, when you make a post provide comments that explain your thought process. Right now i see a block of text that stated Ron Pauls beliefs, yet no explanation as to what is wrong with them. Almost as if you are scared to say anything else regarding the matter and are leaving it up to other readers to decipherer for you, and thus allowing them to come of with their own interpretation for you.

I dont know what your trying to get at with your post.

Are you against religion anywhere in America? Are you against religion being done in public areas? Are you against religion being seen in public schools?

Are you against the Islamic religion?

You must make a stance when you are debating.

First of all, yes I am strongly against religion being performed in public areas. The fact that your not just comes to show how bad the times are getting.

Second of all, This is not a debate forum. I'm not debating, I'm telling you that your wrong on fundamental issues. There is a big difference.

As for myself not having explained enough, I said everything that I needed to say. If your to much of a fundamentalist, pacifistic, republican to see my reasons then that is your own fault not mine. I'm not here to teach you about your wrong ways I'm only making an argument against what you've said. Your tolerance for religion being combined with capitalism is disgusting at best. Your attempts at converting me into a Ron Paul hippie is proven futile, even with all the smug childish statements. I honestly shouldn't have wasted my time with you.

P.S. Yes I'm aware of the fact that I have also made several rude statements back at you that I couldn't help but say for laughs. Just in case you were considering calling me a hypocrite any time in the future, it would just.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Miles White

[FeatherFall]

Jeremy, your combative tone isn't doing Ron Paul or yourself any favors. When you devote half of your post to voicing frustration or attacking the intelligence of your opponent, people tend to write you off. Try dialing it down a notch.

Islam is a backward ideology, and when taken seriously it is just as dangerous as any other faith, but I won't defend statements that claim we are at war with it. The real war is with a theopolitical ideology, Islamism; Islamic Theocracies, those who act to join Islam with politics or people who enforce Sharia law. This is a war Ron Paul won't fight.

Regarding free trade and immigration; a foreigner who comes here to work isn't "stealing a job". He is competing in the labor market. Trade, among other things, encompasses rent, property purchases, wages and labor. By restricting entry to foreigners, you restrict trade. A proper immigration policy allows in everyone who isn't a known criminal or foreign agent and takes precautions to prevent the spread of communicable diseases.

A few nights ago I met a doctor whose family had to wait ten years before winning the immigration lottery. Our current system opposes the principle of individual rights and is immoral. This is the kind of system Ron Paul supports. When Ron Paul says that he will abandon immigration quotas, he might have a good immigration policy.

Edit-I might also have addressed my first paragraph to Miles, even though he didn't pick this fight.

Edited June 18, 2008 by FeatherFall

[OneShotKi11]

Im sorry, but i must disagree. I am a Union Ironworker and we have worked extremely hard for the amount we get paid and our benefits. Yet we are losing jobs more then ever to immigrant workers who are working for less then half of what we get paid. They work under unsafe conditions without the proper equipment , but because of that they save companies huge amounts of money. Thus Union jobs are being given away to illegals, who dont pay taxes.

I will continue to consider that stealing my job.

As for ers and his problem with 2 million Muslims living in the U.S. I suggest we start build our concentration camps today.

[softwareNerd]

Im sorry, but i must disagree. I am a Union Ironworker and we have worked extremely hard for the amount we get paid and our benefits. Yet we are losing jobs more then ever to immigrant workers who are working for less then half of what we get paid. They work under unsafe conditions without the proper equipment , but because of that they save companies huge amounts of money.

Whether you work hard or not the major factor in trade. For instance, Microsoft could say that they worked really hard to create Windows, so you should not be allowed to use Linux, which is developed for free. If someone else wants to work for less, or in less safe conditions, it is their choice. The U.S. was founded on the principle of individual rights, not the right to be given a job just because you work hard and are a good fellow. Unionization itself is partly to blame for the problems you face, because it uses the force of law to raise wages beyond what free men would otherwise have contracted.

Thus Union jobs are being given away to illegals, who dont pay taxes.

When illegal immigrants do not pay tax, they compete on a non-level playing field. If they were legal, they would pay the regular taxes. So, the solution is to remove all quotas. Edited June 18, 2008 by softwareNerd

[ers]

As for ers and his problem with 2 million Muslims living in the U.S. I suggest we start build our concentration camps today.

I never said we should exterminate Muslims. But something must be done. Unless of course you're comfortable with living as a second class citizen under Sharia law in fifty years.

It's a very serious problem and I don't have a solution for it. It needs serious discussion and contemplation.

[FeatherFall]

Jeremy, nobody is making you a victim by working for wages that you and the union think you're too good for. You should see this as an opportunity to re-evaluate what your labor is actually worth. These 'illegals' are human beings, and have the same claim to any job that you have.

Do you think you have a right to dictate who an employer will hire? Do you think government oversight of hiring practices and wages is appropriate in a free economy?

[Mammon]

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr071508h.htm

This is a recent speech Paul gave on the house floor, it shows his views on Iran.

[israel]

I, on principle, hate libertarians, so on prejudice I don't believe I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul. One thing that I know about him in particular that I dislike is his demand to immediately withdrawal U.S. troops from Iraq, and another is his Marxist account of the history of war. Does anybody else have information about him?

Also, I might as well bring up a topic that should be on the table: The evil in libertarianism, largely, is that it claims to be a political philosophy, but in reality it avoids moral judgement, philosophy, and principle in order to garner members. Does this make a Republican or Democrat candidate any better? On what principle does Clinton or Obama run? Clinton, if you believe her campaign statements, runs on the principle of "protecting the American family", whatever the hell that means. Obama, if anything, runs on the principle that business is bad. McCain? In the thread about (I think) 2008 presidential hopefuls, we've eliminated that guy on principle. Giuliani? I think he runs on the principle of minimizing government and keeping it a well-oiled machine (cutting out corruption, red tape, not pandering to pressure groups, etc.). But that's arguable--so is there a candidate of principle, whom we should vote for?

Assuming that you follow objectivism:

you probably believe in a free market, you probably believe in a night watchmen government, you probably believe in the legality of victimless crimes, you probably are a libertarian.

[SkyTrooper]

Assuming that you follow objectivism... you probably are a libertarian.

[SkyTrooper]

Just to clarify, since banging my head against a wall doesn't add much, the Libertarian party has little to nothing in common with Objectivists. Ayn Rand liked Communists more than Libertarians. Basically all you have to do to call yourself a Libertarian is mutter "I like liberty" (without having to define liberty) and you're in. That's why there are anti-abortion libertarians, "anarcho-capitalist" libertarians, etc. As such, the Libertarian party is a serious threat to liberty.

Also, I'm sure this has been mentioned several other times in this thread.

[thomasjefferson]

I am so baffled! You people make little sense. I love Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Really the Philosophy of the American founders. But some of you have called the Libertarian party "wish washy" and say they don’t have principals? And seem to be clinging to the Republican party? I am a life lone Republican right here in Utah. But the Republican party is not the Republican party I remember from the past. The Republican party is just as "wish washy" as the socialist party aka Democratic. Heck... the republican party with John McCain is just as socialist as the Democrats! As I read Capitalism: the unknown ideal I cannot believe objectivist would rather vote for John McCain over Ron Paul or Bob Barr! As many flaws as you think these two have according to that book John McCain has far more flaws!!!

I get frustrated talking to an Obama supporter because they make no sense and are so stubborn. I can’t believe I am just as stupefied listening to some of this talk.

Ron Paul has stated a number of times (maybe you are tuning him out on purpose) that we SHOULD go after the terrorists! But not occupy foreign nations as the founding fathers believed.

Sometimes I read Leonard Peikoff's articles. He has said a number of times that different countries are our allies.

I believe the objectivist on almost all alpecst but foriegn policy.

The founders said this:

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith:—here let us stop." George Washington’s farewell address.

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al-Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands, and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks.

Isreal and Islam have been in one continual fight for the last 5,000 years because both believe in an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye for and eye........ We must bring the troops home and stop bothering them like little brother bugging a sister. You know what will happen if he keeps his finger in her face.

Obviously you seem to be as stubborn as socialist and will revile my comments.

Good bye.

[DavidOdden]

Good bye.

I agree: goodbye.

[Clawg]

I am so baffled! You people make little sense. I love Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Really the Philosophy of the American founders. But some of you have called the Libertarian party "wish washy" and say they don’t have principals?

They don't. That's why the libertarian party is dangerous to the ideas of Objectivism, at least from a 'public relations' point of view as the political goals are similar.

Having a libertarian government is not useful in the long-term, because sooner or later - because the lack of principles and underlying philosophy - it will destroy itself because it cannot answer certain questions that require the underlying philosophy.

And seem to be clinging to the Republican party? I am a life lone Republican right here in Utah. But the Republican party is not the Republican party I remember from the past. The Republican party is just as "wish washy" as the socialist party aka Democratic. Heck... the republican party with John McCain is just as socialist as the Democrats! As I read Capitalism: the unknown ideal I cannot believe objectivist would rather vote for John McCain over Ron Paul or Bob Barr! As many flaws as you think these two have according to that book John McCain has far more flaws!!!

I get frustrated talking to an Obama supporter because they make no sense and are so stubborn. I can’t believe I am just as stupefied listening to some of this talk.

Who to vote for is more or less a question of strategy than of principles. Political change can and will only occur by promoting the right philosophy and by understanding, not by 'bringing people to vote libertarian because the libertarian party shows a strong support at its base', although the latter *might* lead people to Objectivism.

Personally I don't think there is a clear answer which strategy is the best.

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith:—here let us stop." George Washington’s farewell address.

Well, the issue is this:

Objectivism reaches the same conclusions but only under certain circumstances. Objectivism doesn't start with commandments like "Trade is good", "Respect other countries' souvereignity" etc.

Trade is generally good, respecting other countries' souvereignity is generally good. But the underlying principle must be self-interest, which, under certain circumstances, leads to completely different conclusions. In principle a free country has every right to invade, occupy, bomb etc. any non-free country on earth.

The big question is, if it is in the self-interest of the people of the US (who are the people of the US?) to use that right. That's the point where a discussion should start.

[softwareNerd]

There are a lot of comments of this nature by Ron Paul posters on this forum. ...

From his rhetoric, it also means ..., viewing Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant who involved the United States in an "unnecessary" war ...

Timothy Sandefur comments on Ron Paul's views on the civil-war.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Slavery is fundamental--far more so than any of the causes of the civil war including economic factors, which a true recognition of the rights of man transcend. Our country simply would not--and did not--have a right to exist while slavery existed. The North's fight against slavery was a battle to complete the vision of our constitution. With slavery, the words, "all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" were a joke. Slavery cannot logically be part of the USA and the South, in that sense, were not Americans until they surrendered to the North.

Paul's comments show he understands none of this.