Ron Paul speaks against SOPA • Hacker News Board

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#21

Post by ugh » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:04 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #5

naz wrote: post #3

This is unsurprising. Ron Paul is generally against new legislation.

As a British person I don't know much about American politics but I often see this Ron Paul guy turn up in discussions about politics in general. He seems to a hero to many people including those who aren't the stereotypical republican voters. I have to admit I don't quite understand his appeal, his position seems to always just be to oppose any new legislation on government involvement in anything. His position alwa…

Part of it is an obsession with being consistent instead of being right.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#22

Post by waffle_ss » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:05 PM UTC

Angostura wrote: post #12

waffle_ss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says "no" a lot because the federal gov't has become way too bloated. There already is a free market solution to your scenario - it's called "insurance".

I'm intrigued. Who should have taken out insurance in the case of Katrina, for example?

Um, anyone who wants something insured? Life insurance, homeowners insurance, automobile insurance, agricultural insurance, etc. I think most policies refer to things like hurricanes as "acts of God".

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#23

Post by waffle_ss » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:12 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #16

waffle_ss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says "no" a lot because the federal gov't has become way too bloated. There already is a free market solution to your scenario - it's called "insurance".

Except insurance against "acts of God" is extremely hard (and expensive) to get. The free market has spoken: when emergency strikes, f*ck the poor people.

I'm not sure about how much more expensive it is, but if I lived in a hurricane-prone area I would probably investigate it and consider it a cost of living there. Otherwise, if I can just get bailed out by the federal gov't when disaster strikes, those who choose to live in the safer areas of the country are essentially subsidizing the risks I assume by living there. Think of it as a negative externality (stretching my ECON101 limits a little here perhaps? :).

I think the conclusion I'd rather draw is "the free market doesn't owe you anything."

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#24

Post by toyg » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:12 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #20

jiggy2011 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a British person I don't know much about American politics but I often see this Ron Paul guy turn up in discussions about politics in general. He seems to a hero to many people including those who aren't the stereotypical republican voters. I have to admit I don't quite understand his appeal, his position seems to always just be to oppose any new legislation on government involvement in anything. His position alwa…

Among other things, he'd spend his time enacting anti-abortion laws.

Thanks for the downvotes, but what's wrong about what I said? He's openly anti-abortion, and promoted anti-abortion legislation at Federal level (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul... ).

Presumably, he would do the same once elected.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#25

Post by CWuestefeld » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:13 PM UTC

llambda wrote: post #13

jiggy2011 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a British person I don't know much about American politics but I often see this Ron Paul guy turn up in discussions about politics in general. He seems to a hero to many people including those who aren't the stereotypical republican voters. I have to admit I don't quite understand his appeal, his position seems to always just be to oppose any new legislation on government involvement in anything. His position alwa…

It's interesting to think about consistency as something that is necessarily valued. I think the naive rationale goes something like this, "Well a politician should be consistent because they must represent the will of the constituency which elected them, thereby enfranchising those people and validating the institution of democracy." However, that said, consistency can be a burden. Imagine this applied to the startu…

he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution

That's essentially correct, but a bit of an oversimplification. A more accurate representation would be "he wants to limit the federal govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution". There are a number of things that he'd like to see the government do, but at a state or local level.

For example, he's strongly opposed to abortion, but he's also opposed to any federal legislation addressing the issue one way or the other (note that there's no federal law against murder, for example; this is dealt with by the states).

So your concerns about the agility of the organization are better handled through Paul's approach. The way the system works today, politicians make a choice, and then stick to it no matter the evidence (see the War on Drugs, NCLB, etc.). No matter what happens, they can't back down on their position because it weakens them politically. Given Paul's approach, the states can serve as mini laboratories, each trying out different approaches to solve problems, with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states.

I'm very concerned with your statement:

the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world.

The problem with this is in the interpretation of the "intent of the original authors". This is essentially what's happening today, and it means that whoever is in power gets to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they can come up with some plausible rationalization. When the document can be plastic in this way, it serves as only a very weak protection against runaway government.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#26

Post by nhebb » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:13 PM UTC

narag wrote: post #6

Ron Paul currently leads the majority of Iowa polls. IIRC Mr. Paul was a minoritary candidate in last elections. Please, people from the USA, Could you tell what has changed? Or is Iowa special?

It has a pretty good track record of picking the eventual Democratic nominee, but Iowa is not special for the Republican party. It has a poor record of voting for the eventual Republican party nominee in races where there is not an incumbent - 2/5 races since 1972. In fact, it has a better track record of picking the GOP outlier.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#27

Post by jiggy2011 » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:17 PM UTC

llambda wrote: post #18

[deleted] wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

After Katrina he made remarks[1], and here I'm paraphrasing, that amounted to saying that neighboring states shouldn't have to pay for the misfortune of other states, i.e. through FEMA. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07...

Right. It appears to me that he would almost want to make states completely autonomous entities in which case why have a federal government at all?

Ironically it would seem if he was elected as president he would basically work to put himself out of a job.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#28

Post by kissickas » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:17 PM UTC

makmanalp wrote: post #19

dkhenry wrote: post #4

What is great about Ron Paul's stance is that I am confident based on his continual display of principled politics that if elected he would stand by this. Who cares what the other candidates are tickling our ears with. Paul is the only one who I feel would actually stand up to the Movie Industry.

I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a... I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.

Ron Paul has claimed he didn't write those comments (taken from newsletters a few decades ago) and has renounced them, at least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_y...

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#29

Post by toyg » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:20 PM UTC

waffle_ss wrote: post #23

toyg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except insurance against "acts of God" is extremely hard (and expensive) to get. The free market has spoken: when emergency strikes, f*ck the poor people.

I'm not sure about how much more expensive it is, but if I lived in a hurricane-prone area I would probably investigate it and consider it a cost of living there. Otherwise, if I can just get bailed out by the federal gov't when disaster strikes, those who choose to live in the safer areas of the country are essentially subsidizing the risks I assume by living there. Think of it as a negative externality (stretching…

The free market doesn't owe you anything indeed, but society, which the government represents, is a very different thing.

Sorry, I'm European and hardcore US "free-marketism" is so incredibly alien from here... I mean, the free market wouldn't ever give me 24 days of paid vacation every year, so why should I want more of it?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#30

Post by llambda » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 2:21 PM UTC

makmanalp wrote: post #19

dkhenry wrote: post #4

What is great about Ron Paul's stance is that I am confident based on his continual display of principled politics that if elected he would stand by this. Who cares what the other candidates are tickling our ears with. Paul is the only one who I feel would actually stand up to the Movie Industry.

I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a... I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.

Most worrisome is that while these issues have come to light, in my /very/ limited experience, attempting to broach the issue with Paul supporters has been met with at best dismal and at worst outright irrational anger. In fact I've now been told a number of times that such quotations are falsified, that they've been planted by Paul's detractors. The implication seems to be they're suggesting this is the manifestation of some kind of conspiracy against him. I'm quite honestly baffled that supporters of a purist would allow exceptions... Alternatively, twice I've been told by Paul supporters that they are in fact are not supporters, but rather anarchists (this only comes up in the context of such content as the newsletter debacle).