Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

US Elections 2012

Rate this topic


Kjetil

Recommended Posts

Well I guess we'll have to, but at least acknowlede that at the end of the day, this isn't RP's views. The worst you would be able to say is "I couldn't tell from this comment alone," or "He poorly communicated the point, from my standpoint," however I think you should be able to, seeing as how making such an inference is not valid based on those comments.

I'm honestly not sure what to say. If I haven't read him sufficiently, I should have else I shouldn't criticize as I'm leaving out the broader context that would make his meaning clear. If I consider only the context of that (those) questions in the debate and his answer, then it's ambiguous, and what I mean is that, given his audience, he should, ideally, make his meaning clear to such an audience. All I see is, if the federal government wants medical care or whatever, that's bad, but if the states, individually, want medical care or whatever, that's good. Now, talking with you, okay, I kinda accept that that "good" means consistent with the Constitution, State's Rights and the 10th amendment.

I can't quite agree that this would be "ambiguous at best, a moral sanction at worst," seeing as how the inference isn't there, that should take away the moral sanction as an option. I see it is ambiguous at worst, in which case I think it reasonable to investigate further, or at least listen to people when they try to make it unambiguous. Though I guess I can agree that RP isn't the most eloquent public speaker (though I did point that out in my first post in here.)

I cannot see though your eyes or think using your mind, only my own. How about giving me the benefit of the doubt, unless you think that I'm being dishonest or irrational (in which case it would be helpful were you to actually explain how so, not just tell me you think that I'm being dishonest or irrational)? I took what he said a certain way and thought (and still think, likely - I'll try to explain below) that he meant to be morally sanctioning the states to have medical care or whatever "we" want, and I said so.

You've taken issue. But, you think that I should have investigated first. Why? I thought I understood. Why, if I think I understand, would I want to investigate? On principle that I'm stupid or ignorant? Let's see, Ron Paul thinks that abortion is murder, wants to have states outlaw it and punish the offenders, and that's, well it's excusable given his stand for the Constitution, but for me to not investigate him so well that I agree with him, when I do not, well then that is beyond the pale. I am filled with shame.

Now, in talking to you, I may come to see a need to investigate, but it's like you expect that I should know everything possibly relevant prior to making any judgements even when I think, sincerely, that I have sufficient grounds to comment and criticize.

There's not time enough in life to approach things in the manner I believe that you're suggesting. I notice something that I disagree with, something I find offensive, and I criticize that. Oh no, no good. Wait, read all that you should of the person before you draw a conclusion. Don't say anything until then. Well, maybe a question or two would be okay.

In other words, I think that I have approached this issue reasonably; you seem to think otherwise. By what standard? I'm not purposefully ignoring something that I think is relevant. Maybe I'm ignorant, but if so, if I'm ignorant of something that would be helpful for me to know, then I don't know that I don't know something that you think I should already know, or at least know that I need to know what I don't yet know that I should already know. Well, I can hear you type, "Yes, you should have!" (I'm kidding.)

Now:

On the abortion issue, I don't think this argument works because again, if RP sees abortion to be murder, why wouldn't he advocate laws stopping it? In his view, he is protecting rights. I disagree with RP on that one. But I don't think that, if you were ignorant of his general views, that you can go from this to saying that he would also likely support state-level socialized medicine, or whatever advocates of government intervention would want, especially when he was just asked a question about how things should be organized under the Tenth Amendment. Such a jump isn't warranted from the abortion position he expresses. It's a subtle distinction, I know, and you're right that it's probably beyond the average Republican audience member, but I have higher expectations for this board.

His view of rights is the Lockean view, unfortunately leaning more toward the religious side, but I don't think it necessarily has to be taken as absolutely dependent on religion (also explicitly spelled out in Liberty Defined, which btw, you can read the Introduction and Appendix online for free.) I'm sure you can find some other views which aren't compatible with Objectivism, there are a few of them. But I can't help but wonder why Objectivists focus all their attention on these handful of things, when the vast majority of his views would greatly help increase our country's condition with regard to liberty, prosperity, and peace; and when he is the only principled and honest politician out there that understands liberty and Austrian economics.

Thanks for the links. I will check them out.

Here's the deal, and I'm just going to bring that one bit of context, which I was already aware of, Mr. Paul's views re abortion. This is why I asked about the relation between the federal government and the state governments, in as much as, should the federal government have any say if a state has violated rights.

Okay, for Mr. Paul, the federal government should not have any say in abortion, it's a state's rights issue to be decided by each state according to what "we" in each state wants: abortion as legal, abortion as illegal, some compromise. Whatever. There's that whatever again.

So, let's say that a few years down the road, Ron Paul has been president for awhile, got elected in 2012, and he's vetoed each and every bill that was not consistent with the 10th amendment. It's state's rights all the way. Damn fine president!

So, in accord with whatever "we" in each of the states think should be legal or illegal (such as abortion, or medical care or whatever), given that such issues of rights in relation to such things as abortion, medical care or whatever is a matter of "we" to decide, just as obviously Mr. Paul does believe that his view on abortion is correct, that abortion is murder and should be outlawed, and that if enough of his fellow Texans get together to be the "we" that decides that issue, well then it's settled. Abortion is illegal in Texas because "we" hold that it is murder, a violation of rights, and should be outlawed. What's our standard for rights? Is it objective? Hell yes, life and rights begin at conception and abortion is murder and therefore a violation of rights. Any fool with a bit of common sense can see that. Damn right! And babe, get me a beer! And take care of that damn kid of yours....ur....ours.

Now surely, given that abortion is murder, a violation of rights, that issue of rights must point to the fundamental principle underlying that particular issue, the fundamental principle of rights that would give rise to the view that abortion is murder and must therefore be outlawed, and the federal government should keep it's damn self out of our state's business. After all, there's the 10th amendment and President Paul is set on upholding it come hell or high water.

How about you guys in Louisiana? What do you, what do "we" over there think are rights, and what do "we" think should be outlawed over there?

Kansas? I can barely hear you, but please speak up. Oh, yes, religion and intelligent design in your public (as long as they're not federal) schools. Well God bless you!

On and on. State by state, "we" in every state decides what rights to uphold. Just as "we" in Texas think that abortion is murder, well all those other "we" have their opinions too.

Rights? You damn straight! Rights all the way. "We" know what a right is when "we" see one.

And you federal guys with your Constitution. Your only job is to butt out of our state's rights. "We" decide what's right for our state, what individual rights are, etc. You guys, we'll you get the hell out of our way! Remember John Galt! Remember the Alamo! And, God bless Texas!

Whatever!

Tongue out of cheek.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no, again I don't think you would have had to read everything he ever wrote to understand the point. I know you saw: Fed level bad, state level good, go do whatever y'all want now. But even based entirely on the question as presented in the video, I don't think this is warranted, especially when you know you know little if anything at all about his views, and that you know this is a debate where you are given 15-20 seconds to explain complex positions that probably have a lot more to them.

Even given entirely what we have in the video, Ron Paul says the hypothetical "If we want government..." He never said "doing this is good," he never said "good" at all. He mere said, in the context of being asked about the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, that if we want government, it's proper to do this at the state level only, and thus there is no authority to do most of what the federal government does. Given this, I think you should know better to launch into a tirade calling RP an advocate of state-level tyranny.

I don't know what you mean in that last part, there. Perhaps, it would be apt to mention that RP believes in, not the people of each state deciding what rights are, but in universal rights. However, "universal rights, protected locally." I think there is something involved here, that he thinks more problems would arise if, for example, the people of Texas tried to enforce their anti-abortion view on the people of Connecticut, that resentment would arise and bring further complications. So this is why he says in the video, when asked the question about why have an exception for incest and murder, he ends up giving a pragmatic answer, and says basically that only the right moral ideas will solve the problem.

So, in the end, he would probably just say "So what?" if Texas wants to have one law, and Connecticut a different law, honestly, who cares? Will the sky fall? Will the world come to an end? Will the Earth break free of its axis and careen into the Sun? No, and we Texans who believe it is murder will simply have to reason with the Nutmeggers and convince them of the righteousness of our ways, but enforcing a policy on them that they find offensive to their rights will not work. Let a thousand flowers bloom, he would say, and let peaceful moral suasion, not a competition of who can force their views on the others or be forced, solve the problem. I doubt that this will be entirely acceptable from an Objectivist point of view, but I think that would be an accurate representation of Ron Paul's views on the matter. As far as what I think, though this falls short of our idea of a fully free society, there is something to say for this approach, if only as opposed to the behemoth central-state approach on every issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

None of them are my pick. Not one.

*******

The same people who look to government and complain that government and government intervention are the problem....

...look to government again to solve the problem.

********

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

********

Indeed, as pointed out in the philosophy, we are the only solution.

It has always been up to us, it is now up to us and it will always be up to us.

There is no other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... you mean that wasn't a sarcastic title to an awesome article? If, like me, that's what you were expecting, then prepare to be disappointed: Salsman actually supports the massive-government plastic man haha... Note the article makes no mention of the anti-theocracy Ron Paul, I guess he doesn't exist as far as Salsman is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute... this is the ARI's favorite economist?!?! Sweeping Massachusetts' socialized medicine plan under the rug based on the (alleged) intent of the guy who foisted it on them? Since when did intentions count?

His criticisms of the other candidates, however, are valid.

Ron Paul, by the way, is not anti-theocracy; he just wants it to be on the retail level. He does not believe the first amendment (or any other part of the Bill of Rights) should apply to the states and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/238/what-does-the-first-amendment-really-mean/ used to explain this but apparently he caught enough flak that he's pulled it. He also does not accept evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul, by the way, is not anti-theocracy; he just wants it to be on the retail level.

This is a falsehood. There is nothing to indicate that Ron Paul wants theocracy "on the retail level." There is nothing to indicate he wants it at all. None of what you posted after this, even if we accept it at face value (which I would caution against) would suffice to prove this either. Even if we accept without further inquiry that RP doesn't accept the incorporation doctrine, it doesn't follow that he wants theocracy. If he wants to overturn the unconstitutional Roe vs. Wade, then it still doesn't follow that he wants theocracy. If we stupulate that he doesn't accept evolution, it doesn't follow that he wants theocracy. This statement is just poisoning the well against Ron Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this stage, the only people who seem to have a shot at being on the Presidential ballot for 2012 are Romney, Gingrich and Obama. I think Romney should be able to win against Obama, but he's no shoo-in. I think Gingrich will have a significantly harder time beating Obama. Personally, among those three, I would probably vote for Romney; today I'm not sure which one I'd choose between Gingrich and Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leftistspew, if you want the perfect progress you seem to want, you are going to be waiting until long after your grandchildren are dead. It may be wrong, but it sure as hell isn't as wrong or as destructive as the increasing and dare I say frighteningly militaristic statism of both the Democrats and Republicans.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ron Paul's foreign policy is suicidal."

I have seen plenty of foreign policy suggestions on here that are far more suicidal, and I would contend that is something agreed on by most foreign policy experts that have the real world experience and backgrounds to have such an opinion. While I don't think you have to read his books to understand him, as was discussed earlier, I do think this applies in the case of foreign policy specifically, and not the other areas. I do not prefer his foreign policy, but I do prefer it to the current widespread appeasement, misdirection, and inaction that has been the governing policy of the last few decades of our foreign policy, which has created us far more enemies than friends, and even our friends are barely worth such a title. Either way, he won't win, so either get ready for more of the status quo of the last few years or a war with Iran which will devastate our economy and stretch our military thin, regardless of what delusions lead you to believe such over concrete, well known intelligence facts we've had for years. Have fun with that.

You all vote for who you want, but I've already decided I won't be voting for those 3 clowns. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

That's okay - that Rick Perry ("pointy boots" as one local (Austin, Texas) talk-show host calls him) and many many others think believe that Christian faith made America strong. All we need is to have competing protection agencies and the incentives will be in place to ensure the recognition and respect for rights. We could have a Christian protection agency, an Islamic (Sharia) protection agency, a Libertarian protection agency, and even an Objectivist, among others, protection agency, all competing in the market for rights and freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's okay - that Rick Perry ("pointy boots" as one local (Austin, Texas) talk-show host calls him) and many many others think believe that Christian faith made America strong. All we need is to have competing protection agencies and the incentives will be in place to ensure the recognition and respect for rights. We could have a Christian protection agency, an Islamic (Sharia) protection agency, a Libertarian protection agency, and even an Objectivist, among others, protection agency, all competing in the market for rights and freedom.

Does Lord God Tarskyte get one too? Smite all unbelievers!!

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand admired founding fathers who were not Objectivists. Ayn Rand has endorsed several Republicans for president. Not a single one of them was an Objectivist. While Ayn Rand was upset with the Libertarian Party, she was friends with prominent libertarians who advocated the Austrian school of economics. For example, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard wrote these letters to Ayn Rand.

http://mises.org/jou...21_4/21_4_3.pdf

According to the Wikipedia entry for "Ayn Rand," Henry Hazlitt and his wife were personal friends of Ayn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Ron Paul knew Murray Rothbard well. According to Ron Paul's Wikipedia entry, it was actually Austrian economics that motivated Ron to enter politics and he credits Ayn Rand as one of his big influences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Ron Paul seems very honest. He fervently spoke out against the TSA, voted against the PATRIOT Act, and (unlike Romney/Gingrich) wants smaller government. While I am not an Objectivist, I read a few books by Ayn Rand and can not possibly imagine her ideas aligning with any present Republican candidate more than Ron Paul. Gary Johnson (who I like) said he looks at everything as a cost-benefit analysis (i.e. which does not match the theme of morality being a means to an end as much as Ron Paul). Ron does not entirely align with her perspectives on foreign policy, but on the other hand, I bet Rand would be completely terrified if she saw the TSA today. I think she would know Ron Paul is not a power-hungry demagogue like Romney and Gingrich and Paul stood up as an individual against the collective many times (like Howard Roark).

And sorry to RP fans, I would not be surprised if Gingrich sank but I think Romney's odds are a bit better than Ron Paul's.

Edited by determinist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but I think Romney's odds are a bit better than Ron Paul's.
In the primaries, Romney has significantly better odds than Paul. In a general election, Ron Paul stands zero chance of beating Obama. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a general election, Ron Paul stands zero chance of beating Obama.

According to the recent Gallup poll, Ron Paul is polling just about neck-to-neck with Obama.

http://www.gallup.co...hmann-paul.aspx

Ron Paul has very steadily increased his support since his last campaign. RP is an internet favorite and individuals are increasingly influenced by the internet. He can get many votes from independents in a general election.

The primary election is interesting. Ron Paul is in 3rd in national polls, including the Gallup poll.

http://www.gallup.co...l/election.aspx

Here is a screenshot of the image at the time of this post.

th_911689856_galluppoll_122_430lo.jpg

Both candidates (Gingrich and Romney) who are above Ron Paul in national polls are substantially higher than Ron in those polls. However, prior to Newt, 3 people (Bachmann, Perry, and Cain) rose and sank. And now, (unsurprisingly) it appears that throughout the past 1+ week(s) Newt Gingrich's "surge" has been a downward trajectory (according to the trend in the Gallup graph above). Ron Paul has a lot more campaign money than Newt (and he is now using quite a bit to air ads challenging Newt):

http://www.opensecre...hp?id=N00005906

http://www.opensecre...hp?id=N00008333

So, to say the very least, the idea of Gingrich staying at the top is seriously questionable.

Romney has been more steady than the candidates who surged and sank. He also has quite a bit more campaign money than Ron Paul. However, Romney is roughly tied with Ron Paul in the first state that will be voting in the primary election: Iowa. I do not know if Ron Paul will win Iowa, but if he does, he just might be the #1 focus on mainstream news and surge. My guess is that Ron will not win the primary election, but I bet his odds are nowhere nearly as low as most people believe.

Edited by determinist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the recent Gallup poll, Ron Paul is polling just about neck-to-neck with Obama. http://www.gallup.co...hmann-paul.aspx
Ironically, that same article has all the evidence to suggest that the numbers from August polls have zero relationship to actual outcomes. Not sure why they still do them.

I think a better way to predict at this stage it to extrapolate how Obama and GOP-candidate-X will play during the presidential debate, and how this might impact two audiences:

  • people who may actually vote for either party
  • people who may not vote

These people really matter most in the so-called "swing" states. So, for instance, even if there is a 5% swing away from Obama in New York state (with those number showing up on national polls) it is not relevant, because that's still too little to win those states.

Obama will tailor his message to the person he faces. With Paul or Bachmann, I think it would be relatively easy for Obama to run a negative campaign, scaring "independents" about a far-right shift. Meanwhile, neither of those will be able to counter with a positive, inspirational message. I will bet that in a campaign of scare tactics, the known devil will come out winner.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the known devil will come out winner.

I'm totally disgusted by Obama. Things that he's so far said and done lead me to believe that he's a complete socialist and opposed to individual liberty, as such. I think between the massive debt he's created, the mandated purchase of health care, and the decimation of our oil industry(amongst other things) no president has done as much damage to this country since FDR(Gingrich's favorite president, btw, because of his "progressive policies). That said, I can't in any way bring myself to believe that Gingrich or Romney would be any better. All 3 are insiders with no regard for anything that I hold dear. To the extent that they say anything otherwise it's pretty clear that they're lying. That Paul is doing so well tells me that there's a significant percentage who feel the same. This "Two" party system is a total fraud and I don't intend to support it with the pretense of my involvement in the process.

If Paul runs, I'll vote for him, otherwise I'm going to write in Gary Johnson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...