Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ron Paul

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Ron Paul supporters harass Sean Hannity

There is a video on Youtube of a parade of hooligans supporting Ron Paul antagonistically following Sean Hannity on the street while creating a ruckus. The emotionalist collegiate fanaticism I witness on college campuses in support of Ron Paul really reminds me of the similar mindless fanaticism I witnessed in support of Ralph Nader eight years ago. Suppporting Ron Paul is evidently the rebellious political thing to do nowadays.

Mitt Romney bashes Ron Paul

Incidentally, I was really amused by Mitt Romney's suggestion that Ron Paul needs to stopping reading Ahmadinejad's press releases! This exchange transpired at the recent Republican Presidential debate, you can view a video here. I think that this video is particularly telling in showing how out of touch Ron Paul is with reality. Ron Paul is comparing the recent confrontational between a U.S. destroyer and the Iranian speedboats with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, is discussing how the CIA wants to overthrow the Iranian regime and how "everyone" is so ready to go to war with Iran. Befuddled, moderator Brit Hume eventually interrupts Ron Paul, asking who he is responding to since all of the other Republican candidates were for a passive response to the recent incident.

See, what I gather from the things you posted it seems like Paul's supporters (at least the more vocal ones) are doing it not for liberty but to make sure they aren't slaves to big evil multi-national corporations, the WTO and making sure the world is free from these forces...

They seem to talk about freedom but I think they have the wrong concept of freedom -- the anarchist one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the U.N. is the worst example. NAFTA and WTO are very different.

A real FTA (free trade agreement) between two countries would consist of the sentence "both governments will make no law regulating business between the two countries", maybe adding some paragraphs about security issues or harmonizing contract laws. NAFTA is no such free trade agreement, it is a package deal, i.e. some industries are regulated or they get subsidized on the cost of others due to more government regulation of that industry in one of the countries.

Therefore the first step for a FTA should be first to drop regulation and then to lower tariffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A real FTA (free trade agreement) between two countries would consist of the sentence "both governments will make no law regulating ...
The point is that you ignore the prior context: what was and was not regulated before the treaty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that you ignore the prior context: what was and was not regulated before the treaty.

If all parties involved act on self-interest then lowering the tariffs can be a lever to remove regulation.

What I am concerned about is the transition period which harms the regulated companies who have to compete against unregulated companies from abroad. The question here is where to start, I would start with first removing the regulation although I'm not familiar with the politics and pressure groups involved in that case so I don't know which would be easier.

In addition I worry about additional regulation, i.e. that one country might force regulation on the other country. This has happened and is happening in the EU.

In my opinion there shouldn't be a bilateral contract at all (except some formal agreements concerning security and border traffic). Simply ignore what the other country does and lower your own tariffs and regulation. If the other country does not lower its tariffs then it's their problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the right way to go about things is to simply open up and let other countries do what they like. The fact is that most of these international agreements have resulted in countries opening up more and more (generally) -- mostly other countries, but also the U.S. Take NAFTA, for instance. Try listing the new restrictions imposed on US business and try offsetting these against the removal of restrictions. No, not as a theoretical exercise, but an actual list. In doing so, do not list negatives that pre-dated NAFTA. For instance if Mexican business was not allowed to "dump" cheap goods in the U.S. before NAFTA, and such a condition was retained as part of NAFTA, then that does not count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend brought an interesting article in Reason Magazine to my attention. The article alleges, among other things, that the Ludwig von Mises founder Lew Rockwell Jr. wrote the ugly statements in the Ron Paul newsletter and that both Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard adopted a strategy of "race-baiting" to increase their appeal to a conservative base. You can read the article here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul released his "Comprehensive Economic Revitalization Plan" today

The Four-Point Plan

Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.

Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.

Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness at the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.

Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

For details on the plan click here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition, he has a clear opportunity to declare on his web page what would be the most important feature of his candidacy, namely the supposed commitment to vetoing all improper legislation. And yet he doesn't come out honestly and say it. The only sensible conclusion that can be reached is that he does not in fact intent to consistently veto all improper legislation.

A quote from his website:

Freeze Non-Defense, Non-Entitlement Spending at Current Levels

I vote against all bloated, pork laden spending bills and will veto them as president

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am voting for Ron Paul, but I have a few bones with his platform. First is the references to natural rights 'from the Creator', and that the USA was intended to be a 'robustly Christian nation.' The latter may or may not be true, but we should strive to eliminate religion from government while allowing the individual unrestricted religious freedom.

[As much as I'm in line with Objectivism, I agree with Ron Paul on abortion, only because I believe it is a human being after conception. It has nothing at all to do with religion, it's my rational judgment of the situation. It is made of human cells, has the proportions and many of the organs and 'infrastructure' of a fully developed man. I we could combat unwanted births by making birth control pills and OTC contraceptives like the morning after pill affordable and available without restrictions or prescriptions necessary.]

Aside from references to religion, I think the main reason Ron Paul doesn't get support is because of his stance on foreign policy. Ron Paul is not a pacifist, and with all the talk of the christian just war theory he would have no problem annihilating every inch of a country if they attacked us or showed an imminent threat. As far as response against the 'war on terror', he voted for our entrance into Afghanistan to attack terrorists and advocates Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which treat terrorism as a criminal activity and allow for US troops to enter foreign nations and engage in counterterrorism missions. 'Intervention' in the Middle East is unecessary, and terrorism is not a potent threat, it is only a reaction to foreign occupation of Middle Eastern countries. Name one Islamic terrorist attack in world history that was not linked to occupation by foreign armies or ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims. Of late, attacks on Spain, the UK, and the USA were all openly justified by Al Qaeda as a response to foreign military occupation. There is more oil in the north shore of Alaska than Saudi Arabia; we should drill for all the resources we have, go completely nuclear, and if the time ever comes when we need more resources, that is the point we should destroy non-free governments in order to open up trade for their natural resources or simply annex the countries. Did none of you read 'The Lessons of Vietnam' by Ayn Rand? She was also no pacifist, but she recognized when war and nation-building has value and when it is futile. Right now it's futile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[As much as I'm in line with Objectivism, I agree with Ron Paul on abortion, only because I believe it is a human being after conception. It has nothing at all to do with religion, it's my rational judgment of the situation. It is made of human cells, has the proportions and many of the organs and 'infrastructure' of a fully developed man. I we could combat unwanted births by making birth control pills and OTC contraceptives like the morning after pill affordable and available without restrictions or prescriptions necessary.]

'Intervention' in the Middle East is unecessary, and terrorism is not a potent threat, it is only a reaction to foreign occupation of Middle Eastern countries. Name one Islamic terrorist attack in world history that was not linked to occupation by foreign armies or ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims. Of late, attacks on Spain, the UK, and the USA were all openly justified by Al Qaeda as a response to foreign military occupation.

Given your anti-abortion stand and your rationalization and defense of Islamic terrorism, the phrase "As much as I'm in line with Objectivism" has little meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I'm in line with Objectivism, I agree with Ron Paul on abortion, only because I believe it is a human being after conception.

Do you also believe that trees have rights? A fetus basically has the same intelligence and volitional conciousness of a tree, and they are both compositions of cells. Ergo, you must also be an Eco-Hippie. The fact of the matter is that you can't just claim natural rights for merely being alive, there is a maturity level that is required in order to officially make rational decisions of your own. Children aren't even allowed to fully take responsibility over their own natural rights and you expect a fetus to take responsibility over it's own? A fetus, being a thing that is so under developed that it doesn't even have a gender yet is to be trusted to wield more rights than a kindergardener? The point that I'm trying to make is yes, a fetus does have natural rights, but like children, are not to be trusted with them, thus rendering the "right to life" argument to be null and void. The only reason why somebody would be "Pro-Life" is because they beleive that a fetus is a creation of god and therefore does have some god given right to life that would be a sin if we took away. It is a contradiction to be a Pro-Life Atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you also believe that trees have rights? A fetus basically has the same intelligence and volitional conciousness of a tree, and they are both compositions of cells. Ergo, you must also be an Eco-Hippie. The fact of the matter is that you can't just claim natural rights for merely being alive, there is a maturity level that is required in order to officially make rational decisions of your own. Children aren't even allowed to fully take responsibility over their own natural rights and you expect a fetus to take responsibility over it's own? A fetus, being a thing that is so under developed that it doesn't even have a gender yet is to be trusted to wield more rights than a kindergardener? The point that I'm trying to make is yes, a fetus does have natural rights, but like children, are not to be trusted with them, thus rendering the "right to life" argument to be null and void. The only reason why somebody would be "Pro-Life" is because they beleive that a fetus is a creation of god and therefore does have some god given right to life that would be a sin if we took away. It is a contradiction to be a Pro-Life Atheist.

Don't mean to troll but an abortion thread is going on here:

Abortion Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you also believe that trees have rights? A fetus basically has the same intelligence and volitional conciousness of a tree, and they are both compositions of cells. Ergo, you must also be an Eco-Hippie. The fact of the matter is that you can't just claim natural rights for merely being alive, there is a maturity level that is required in order to officially make rational decisions of your own. Children aren't even allowed to fully take responsibility over their own natural rights and you expect a fetus to take responsibility over it's own? A fetus, being a thing that is so under developed that it doesn't even have a gender yet is to be trusted to wield more rights than a kindergardener? The point that I'm trying to make is yes, a fetus does have natural rights, but like children, are not to be trusted with them, thus rendering the "right to life" argument to be null and void. The only reason why somebody would be "Pro-Life" is because they beleive that a fetus is a creation of god and therefore does have some god given right to life that would be a sin if we took away. It is a contradiction to be a Pro-Life Atheist.

It's sad to see that Objectivism apparently now has a 'political platform' that, like the two parties, skirts philosophy and thought by talking about 'the issues' and which ones all objectivists must support, without providing any rational basis or evidence of broad support in favor. Looks like more people modeling themselves stylistically off Rand's characters than living the philosophy. Someone said I can't be an objectivist and 'rationalize islamic terrorism'. I never tried to say it was moral. I tried to explain it. Then this guy gives an argument that unequivocally morally sanctions parents to kill children under 18 and adults to kill retards of all ages because of 'undeveloped' natural rights. My stance on abortion isn't about God or capital C Creation, because I believe in neither. It's about the fact that once a human is, it is, and it has rights. Is a baby without the right to live seconds before it comes out of the womb? Is a six-month-year-old without the right to live because it can't read, write or speak? Is an eight year old without the right to live because he doesn't fully understand capitalism and the concept of natural rights? Do you have the right to rob and kill any retarded or mentally ill person, as if you were hunting a deer? I can't address that further, but I'll address the terrorism argument. You're right, I can't rationalize Islamic terrorism, and I'm not trying to. But I can't rationalize our foreign policy in the Middle East either. If any of those countries declared war or attacked the US, or showed that an attack was imminent, I would say nuke every inch of it and set an example. But that won't happen, because these countries are impotent, their people are impotent, their philosophy is impotent, their religion is impotent. They are not a threat to anyone but themselves. Our presence there motivates countless coward suicide bombers just enough to strap on a bomb and walk across the street, not to wage international war and take down military superpowers. If we got out, the drive of 90% of the latest terrorist recruits would fizzle off, and even the most committed jihadists would be reluctant to go through with suicide when they can't even see the enemy. The only thing about the Middle East that isn't impotent is oil, and my point was that we have enough oil in Alaska to last us 200 years, so let's at least wait another 150 years before we start worrying about wrestling natural resources or 'interests' in them from non-free nations, which we have every right to do but is not necessary. If I was an eco-hippie, would I advocate drilling and digging for every resource America has? Back to foreign policy. Should we nuke every questionably-free and non-free nation tomorrow? What does that benefit us? Why was that not necessary during all of America's meteoric rise to uncontested world economic super-power? (which has slowed to a crawl in the last 90 or so years)

Edited by pl1985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad to see that Objectivism apparently now has a 'political platform' that, like the two parties, skirts philosophy and thought by talking about 'the issues' and which ones all objectivists must support, without providing any rational basis or evidence of broad support in favor. Looks like more people modeling themselves stylistically off Rand's characters than living the philosophy. Someone said I can't be an objectivist and 'rationalize islamic terrorism'. I never tried to say it was moral. I tried to explain it. Then this guy gives an argument that unequivocally morally sanctions parents to kill children under 18 and adults to kill retards of all ages because of 'undeveloped' natural rights. My stance on abortion isn't about God or capital C Creation, because I believe in neither. It's about the fact that once a human is, it is, and it has rights. Is a baby without the right to live seconds before it comes out of the womb? Is a six-month-year-old without the right to live because it can't read, write or speak? Is an eight year old without the right to live because he doesn't fully understand capitalism and the concept of natural rights? Do you have the right to rob and kill any retarded or mentally ill person, as if you were hunting a deer? I can't address that further, but I'll address the terrorism argument. You're right, I can't rationalize Islamic terrorism, and I'm not trying to. But I can't rationalize our foreign policy in the Middle East either. If any of those countries declared war or attacked the US, or showed that an attack was imminent, I would say nuke every inch of it and set an example. But that won't happen, because these countries are impotent, their people are impotent, their philosophy is impotent, their religion is impotent. They are not a threat to anyone but themselves. Our presence there motivates countless coward suicide bombers just enough to strap on a bomb and walk across the street, not to wage international war and take down military superpowers. If we got out, the drive of 90% of the latest terrorist recruits would fizzle off, and even the most committed jihadists would be reluctant to go through with suicide when they can't even see the enemy. The only thing about the Middle East that isn't impotent is oil, and my point was that we have enough oil in Alaska to last us 200 years, so let's at least wait another 150 years before we start worrying about wrestling natural resources or 'interests' in them from non-free nations, which we have every right to do but is not necessary. If I was an eco-hippie, would I advocate drilling and digging for every resource America has? Back to foreign policy. Should we nuke every questionably-free and non-free nation tomorrow? What does that benefit us? Why was that not necessary during all of America's meteoric rise to uncontested world economic super-power? (which has slowed to a crawl in the last 90 or so years)

If you believe that a fetus should have rights then do you believe that children should be trusted to live their own lives with out being monitored by a parent in any way shape or form? If so, show me your "reasoning". If not ... well then it's a contradiction and against objectivist metaphysics as I stated previously. It's as clear and black and white as that, and if you don't understand black and whites then you really must not understand objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am voting for Ron Paul ...

Wow, yet another meaningless post endorsing Ron Paul by an individual with no established reputation on the forum, no apparent established reputation in the Objectivist community and who has failed to demonstrate a firm grasp of Objectivist principles.

It's sad to see that Objectivism apparently now has a 'political platform' that, like the two parties, skirts philosophy and thought by talking about 'the issues' and which ones all objectivists must support, without providing any rational basis or evidence of broad support in favor. Looks like more people modeling themselves stylistically off Rand's characters than living the philosophy.

This is a prime example of trolling.

Is a baby without the right to live seconds before it comes out of the womb? Is a six-month-year-old without the right to live because it can't read, write or speak? Is an eight year old without the right to live because he doesn't fully understand capitalism and the concept of natural rights? Do you have the right to rob and kill any retarded or mentally ill person, as if you were hunting a deer?

This is known as the fallacy of context dropping. Specifically, the context that an embryo, as a biological fact, is in a parasitic relationship with its mother and cannot possible survive apart from the mother.

I can't address that further, but I'll address the terrorism argument. You're right, I can't rationalize Islamic terrorism, and I'm not trying to. But I can't rationalize our foreign policy in the Middle East either.

This is known as the fallacy of false dichotomy. As if either one is for the altruistic war in Iraq or one must embrace the evasive foreign policy of non-interventionism as atriculated by Ron Paul, a philosophical view which when practiced by the candidate leads him to conclude that "Iran has done nothing to the United States" and that September 11th was executed by "19 thugs", an estimate, which including the 17 hijackers and the two aborted hijackers (Moussaoui and Reid) would not even include Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The only thing about the Middle East that isn't impotent is oil, and my point was that we have enough oil in Alaska to last us 200 years, so let's at least wait another 150 years before we start worrying about wrestling natural resources or 'interests' in them from non-free nations, which we have every right to do but is not necessary.

This is a combination of what is probably a bad engineering estimate and utilitarian collectivism. As if the foreign policy of the United States should depend on if "we" have enough oil.

Should we nuke every questionably-free and non-free nation tomorrow? What does that benefit us?

This is not being proposed by anyone on this forum to my knowledge.

If you actually want to debate the Objectivist view on anything, then please do so in the debate sub-forum.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I, on principle, hate libertarians, so on prejudice I don't believe I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul.

I understand philosophical disagreement with something like libertarianism. But is the added power of hatred actually in your own self-interest. If so I would like to know how?

>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?

I'm not necessarily advocating Paul, basically due to his anti-abortion stand. But, I'm not familiar with his "Marxist account of the history of war." Where could I find something on this? As to his withdrawal from Iraq, I think that is in harmony with what Rand had to say regarding the U.S.'s overly-generous policy decision to enter WWII. Look it up. I can easily provide a reference if you have trouble.

>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.

Yes, libertarians generally do not have much philosophical grounding in the areas of Metaphysics, Epistemology, or Ethics. Sometimes I don't even know how they got as far down a path of individualism as they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that a fetus should have rights then do you believe that children should be trusted to live their own lives with out being monitored by a parent in any way shape or form? If so, show me your "reasoning". If not ... well then it's a contradiction and against objectivist metaphysics as I stated previously. It's as clear and black and white as that, and if you don't understand black and whites then you really must not understand objectivism.

This whole comparison of a fetus with a child is definitely not the right path to winning this argument.

Rand's argument was based upon the absolute private property rights of one's own body.

A fetus is a parasite. It lives off a woman's body. She has an absolute right to get rid of a parasite or any other part of her body she desires. If it can be removed from her living, WITHOUT additional risk to her, in a procedure SHE AGREES TO RISK, and someone wants to take care of it afterward, then that's moral. Otherwise, she has an absolute right as an ACTUAL human being, not to be sacrificed to a POTENTIAL individual human being, by force at the will of the collective.

That's it. That's the whole argument. Just stop there.

Otherwise, take it over to the abortion thread.

Edited by HP11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole comparison of a fetus with a child is definitely not the right path to winning this argument.

Rand's argument was based upon the absolute private property rights of one's own body.

A fetus is a parasite. It lives off a woman's body. She has an absolute right to get rid of a parasite or any other part of her body she desires. If it can be removed from her living, WITHOUT additional risk to her, in a procedure SHE AGREES TO RISK, and someone wants to take care of it afterward, then that's moral. Otherwise, she has an absolute right as an ACTUAL human being, not to be sacrificed to a POTENTIAL individual human being, by force at the will of the collective.

That's it. That's the whole argument. Just stop there.

Otherwise, take it over to the abortion thread.

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...