Something everyone should read about Ron Paul.
#22
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
You mean authoritarianism, correct? Statism has at best a coincidental connection to liberty.
Incidentally, what made you quote Animal Farm of all things? Are you trying to mock binary thinking (and implicitly the hypocrisy between modern political ideologies, "liberty" and "statism") , or are you seriously quoting an Orwellian work that spoke against authoritarianism and binary thinking to try to reinforce binary thinking?
The thing you don't realize is no one will ever let the Ron Paul get everything he wants. It will be somewhere in the middle probably, which is really what we need I think. If we go with anyone else, we will continue the path we are on now, which is basically the 2012 prophecy coming true.
#23
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
STATISM is the belief that the state or the "common good" supercedes the individual. Another term for it is COLLECTIVISM. Statists want to impose their will on YOU via gov't. Both "conservatives" and "liberals" are Statist. They just differ in what things they want to impose on you. "Liberals" want to take your money and re-distribute it, "Conservatives" want to take your money and run an empire. Social conservatives want to prevent you from behaving in certain ways (what you put in your body or involving others with mutual consent).
Examples of Collectivist/Statist gov't systems:
- communism
- socialism
- fascism
- authoritarianism
- autocracy
- monarchy
- democracy (especially mass or pure democracies)
The opposite of collectivism is CLASSICAL LIBERALISM (aka libertarianism) or INDIVIDUALISM. The individual cannot be sacrificed for the common good.
Here's a short video explaining Classical Liberalism:
You think that only because you don't understand the underlying principles. "Allegory of the Caves" and all that. Paul is pretty hardcore Minarchist/Libertarian (aka "Natural Rights Libertarians"). This is the position of the Founding Fathers/Constitution.
There are harder core libertarians, and they are called "AnarchoCapitalists", "Consequentialist Libertarians", and "Agorists". They believe that monopoly gov't (including Minarchy) is evil and market based governmental services is superior. This is a whole 'nother topic.
Examples of Collectivist/Statist gov't systems:
- communism
- socialism
- fascism
- authoritarianism
- autocracy
- monarchy
- democracy (especially mass or pure democracies)
The opposite of collectivism is CLASSICAL LIBERALISM (aka libertarianism) or INDIVIDUALISM. The individual cannot be sacrificed for the common good.
Here's a short video explaining Classical Liberalism:
Paul has some ABSOLUTELY BATSHIT NUTJOB CRAZY ideas
There are harder core libertarians, and they are called "AnarchoCapitalists", "Consequentialist Libertarians", and "Agorists". They believe that monopoly gov't (including Minarchy) is evil and market based governmental services is superior. This is a whole 'nother topic.
Last edited by JasonC SBB; 12-29-2011 at 10:15 PM.
#24
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
STATISM is the belief that the state or the "common good" supercedes the individual. Another term for it is COLLECTIVISM. Statists want to impose their will on YOU via gov't. Both "conservatives" and "liberals" are Statist. They just differ in what things they want to impose on you. "Liberals" want to take your money and re-distribute it, "Conservatives" want to take your money and run an empire. Social conservatives want to prevent you from behaving in certain ways (what you put in your body or involving others with mutual consent).
Statism can be summed up in one sentence. Statism is a political philosophy that believes that the state can be used to support social, economic, or other goals. Nothing more. Even minarchists are statist to some extent as per your other links. Why?
In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions. Such states are called night watchman states.
You think that only because you don't understand the underlying principles. "Allegory of the Caves" and all that. Paul is pretty hardcore Minarchist/Libertarian (aka "Natural Rights Libertarians"). This is the position of the Founding Fathers/Constitution.
There are harder core libertarians, and they are called "AnarchoCapitalists", "Consequentialist Libertarians", and "Agorists". They believe that monopoly gov't (including Minarchy) is evil and market based governmental services is superior. This is a whole 'nother topic.
There are harder core libertarians, and they are called "AnarchoCapitalists", "Consequentialist Libertarians", and "Agorists". They believe that monopoly gov't (including Minarchy) is evil and market based governmental services is superior. This is a whole 'nother topic.
With all of that said, that is an excellent video on liberalism, Jason. I am reposting it with credit to you on this forum. ****, I'm going to be reposting it on other forums as well with credit to you if you want it.
Last edited by blaen99; 12-30-2011 at 03:56 AM.
#25
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Let's be clear: your issue with Ron Paul is not that his abortion stance is inconsistent with individual liberty, it's that you disagree over the science of when life begins. Unless you actually believe that individual liberty for parents is so superior to individual liberty for children that parents have the right to kill their own children if they are inconvenient, of course -- but I'm guessing that's not what you believe.
The whole argument swings on when life begins. If Paul is convinced that life begins at or near conception (or that, in our uncertainty, we must err on the side of caution in order to avoid the inadvertent destruction of human life), then he is being absolutely consistent to protect the individual rights of the unborn.
The whole argument swings on when life begins. If Paul is convinced that life begins at or near conception (or that, in our uncertainty, we must err on the side of caution in order to avoid the inadvertent destruction of human life), then he is being absolutely consistent to protect the individual rights of the unborn.
#26
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
^Motherfucking this. Paul has some ABSOLUTELY BATSHIT NUTJOB CRAZY ideas. But Congress won't let him pass them - on the other hand, he'll be able to force Congress to give a middle-of-the-road compromise that is what we want and need right now. And, frankly, if even his nuttiest and craziest ideas are passed - they err on the side of the citizen, not of the corporation or state.
there's nothing in the middle of the road except for double yellow lines and a dead armadillo.
middle-of-the-road compromises lead to long drawn out 2-month tax credit extension debates.
Last edited by Braineack; 12-30-2011 at 10:25 AM.
#27
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The whole argument swings on when life begins. If Paul is convinced that life begins at or near conception (or that, in our uncertainty, we must err on the side of caution in order to avoid the inadvertent destruction of human life), then he is being absolutely consistent to protect the individual rights of the unborn.
Besides, Paul argues that it should be left to the individual States.
Last edited by JasonC SBB; 12-30-2011 at 12:49 PM.
#28
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
No. What you describe is statism as used in the form of right-wing authoritarianism. You are playing fast and loose with some terms (Edit) Although you are notably correct in a general sense about statism, you are refusing to define it correctly and in a form not supporting your argument (/Edit) - and some of your definitions quite frankly do not match. Even the video you linked contradicts you.
Statism can be summed up in one sentence. Statism is a political philosophy that believes that the state can be used to support social, economic, or other goals. Nothing more. Even minarchists are statist to some extent as per your other links. Why?
Statism can be summed up in one sentence. Statism is a political philosophy that believes that the state can be used to support social, economic, or other goals. Nothing more. Even minarchists are statist to some extent as per your other links. Why?
Anything beyond Minarchy (e.g. "support" economic or social goals), always yields *inferior* results - as fundamentally *any* monopoly by force (i.e. gov't), taking over services that the market can provide, or "solving" problems society can solve, will *always* benefit a small group at the expense of many, resulting in a net negative. You name it: FDA, Federal Reserve, Education, etc.
With all of that said, that is an excellent video on liberalism, Jason. I am reposting it with credit to you on this forum. ****, I'm going to be reposting it on other forums as well with credit to you if you want it.
![wink](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/smilies/wink.gif)
#30
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
This country was very libertarian in its early days, even before the revolution. Before about the 1830s or so it had a strong common law tradition. There was very little gov't in most people's lives.
The old Common Law system interests me because it has some of the features of an AnarchoCapitalist system.
Also, around 950-1300 AD the Icelandic Commonwealth, which lasted longer than this country has been around, had competitive chieftains and a gov't with no executive branch.
The old Common Law system interests me because it has some of the features of an AnarchoCapitalist system.
Also, around 950-1300 AD the Icelandic Commonwealth, which lasted longer than this country has been around, had competitive chieftains and a gov't with no executive branch.
Seriously, 10th century quality of life run by clan-chiefs? So what, you can enjoy your liberty in Alameda Co. but since the chief of Contra Costa Co is a bastard, it's off limits?!?
United
States
America
what's so hard to understand? It's not Fractured Clans of the Western Hemisphere!
#31
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"Anything beyond Minarchy (e.g. "support" economic or social goals), always yields *inferior* results - as fundamentally *any* monopoly by force (i.e. gov't), taking over services that the market can provide, or "solving" problems society can solve, will *always* benefit a small group at the expense of many, resulting in a net negative. You name it: FDA, Federal Reserve, Education, etc.
Says who!?! It's repeated over and over by the ultra right wing but what modern society proves its true? You know fire departments used to be owned by insurance companies? Should we go back to that model?
I think every one of the 300+ million Americans currently enjoy a much better quality of life compared to colonial patriots or Icelandic clans-men. Business makes money, they are not any good at education, regulation, health and safety, or personal rights. They exist for profit, anything created beyond profit is a sign of a bad business.
#35
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![](http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/north-korea-v-south-korea.jpg)
You know fire departments used to be owned by insurance companies? Should we go back to that model?
#36
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Let's be clear: your issue with Ron Paul is not that his abortion stance is inconsistent with individual liberty, it's that you disagree over the science of when life begins. Unless you actually believe that individual liberty for parents is so superior to individual liberty for children that parents have the right to kill their own children if they are inconvenient, of course -- but I'm guessing that's not what you believe.
The whole argument swings on when life begins. If Paul is convinced that life begins at or near conception (or that, in our uncertainty, we must err on the side of caution in order to avoid the inadvertent destruction of human life), then he is being absolutely consistent to protect the individual rights of the unborn.
The whole argument swings on when life begins. If Paul is convinced that life begins at or near conception (or that, in our uncertainty, we must err on the side of caution in order to avoid the inadvertent destruction of human life), then he is being absolutely consistent to protect the individual rights of the unborn.
Otherwise personal liberty, as viewed by out "founding fathers" means that you can sell your children, just like a goat. When our consititution was written, nobody believed children deserved ANY rights, while parents were given liberty to do what the feel was best. Sooner or later you have to cross that bridge.
#37
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
They exist for profit, anything created beyond profit is a sign of a bad business.
#40
Boost Czar
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/admin.png)
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Otherwise personal liberty, as viewed by out "founding fathers" means that you can sell your children, just like a goat. When our consititution was written, nobody believed children deserved ANY rights, while parents were given liberty to do what the feel was best. Sooner or later you have to cross that bridge.
children can't smoke, have sex, vote, drive, don't have freedom of speech in schools...