I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied. • Hacker News Board

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#21

Post by jimzvz » Fri, May 17, 2013, 1:45 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #14

HarryRotha wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your calling someone a corporatist who has fought against every corporate bailout thrown together in Washington? Thats rather silly mate. I'm not very into any 1 ism myself, but I've studied enough to realize that there are pointed differences between corporatism and capitalism. The Pauls seem to be capitalists. Many others who claim to be capitalists are corporatists.

He fights against bailouts, sure. But he also fights against all regulation.

Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#22

Post by ebbv » Fri, May 17, 2013, 1:49 PM UTC

jimzvz wrote: post #21

ebbv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He fights against bailouts, sure. But he also fights against all regulation.

Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.

Uhh, no.

Regulation is what requires corporations to dispose of pollutants properly instead of just dumping them in rivers.

Regulation is what requires corporations to give workers proper safety warnings, equipment and training rather than just putting them in harm's way.

Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want.

Regulation is what requires corporations to pay full time workers overtime, give breaks and sick time, and just generally treat them like human beings.

Regulation is for corporations what criminal law is for individuals.

It's what prevents the worst of us from behaving as badly as they would otherwise.

Not all regulation is automatically good, just like not all criminal laws are automatically good. But there is a reason it exists, and it has an important role to play.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#23

Post by waffle_ss » Fri, May 17, 2013, 1:52 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #20

waffle_ss wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because someone is against having a massive federal government doesn't make them a corporatist. I suggest you compare the donors that Ron Paul had in his campaign vs. Obama and Romney to find out who the real corporatists are. You could also count how many corporate lobbyists Obama has appointed to positions in the federal government.

Where did I say anything about Obama or Romney? They are both far too beholden to corporate interests as well. But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.

You didn't, I was giving you examples of actual corporatists (particularly Obama as he's actually appointed lobbyists to positions of power in the federal government).

    corporatist: "A supporter of corporatism."
    corporatism: "The control of a state or organization by large interest groups."

Using the definition of the word, how exactly are either of the Pauls corporatists?

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#24

Post by ebbv » Fri, May 17, 2013, 1:53 PM UTC

jimzvz wrote: post #17

ebbv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are corporatists. They happen to be right on a couple of issues but they are wrong on almost everything else. A list of things they are wrong on: - Civil rights : The Pauls have long been against the Civil Rights act though they recently pretend they aren't. - Environmental regulation : They want none. Our major cities would look like those terrible pictures/video from China. Some of you may be…

You've added why YOU think they are wrong, that doesn't make them wrong. > You may disagree with my viewpoints, but the point of this comment is to show I have well considered reasons for not liking them. Maybe you need to consider further.

Of course you don't have to agree with me, you can choose to be wrong if you want to.

But my point was that it's not just "contrarian bullshit", and I'm right about that.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#25

Post by ebbv » Fri, May 17, 2013, 1:55 PM UTC

waffle_ss wrote: post #23

ebbv wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I say anything about Obama or Romney? They are both far too beholden to corporate interests as well. But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.

You didn't, I was giving you examples of actual corporatists (particularly Obama as he's actually appointed lobbyists to positions of power in the federal government). corporatist: "A supporter of corporatism." corporatism: "The control of a state or organization by large interest groups." Using the definition of the word, how exactly are either of the Pauls corporatists?

Bush appointed lots of lobbyists too. It's unfortunately how our government works in an age of unfettered corporate donations. If you hate it as much as I do then you should be for publicly financed campaigns to remove corporate interest from elections.

The Pauls are corporatists because they would eliminate basically all regulation and so many government services that corporations would be the government.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#26

Post by waffle_ss » Fri, May 17, 2013, 1:59 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #22

jimzvz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.

Uhh, no. Regulation is what requires corporations to dispose of pollutants properly instead of just dumping them in rivers. Regulation is what requires corporations to give workers proper safety warnings, equipment and training rather than just putting them in harm's way. Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want. Regulation is what r…

Actually yes, regulation also gives favored status to corporations. For example, the "Big Three" credit rating agencies who were given the federal gov't's blessed "NRSRO" status, who controlled 95% of the market share on credit ratings and who ended up being a a major cause of the 2008 bank failure due to their malfeasance in rating debt.

Another example is Bell Systems("Ma Bell")'s stifling of innovation as they held a government-sanctioned monopoly over telephone service via the Communications Act of 1934. Ma Bell would have had no reason to build you an iPhone as they had the market cornered.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#27

Post by scrapcode » Fri, May 17, 2013, 1:59 PM UTC

benjamincburns wrote: post #12

I know this is obnoxious to post on HN, but since you're pushing the discussion here... > One of the few that are fighting against our privacy and rights on the internet is KY Senator Rand Paul. I think you meant "fighting for our privacy?"

Indeed I did. Thanks.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#28

Post by rubikscube » Fri, May 17, 2013, 2:01 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #8

pvnick wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is little else of Rand Paul worth paying for. Anytime either of the Paul's do something great that hits the news (many times a year), the armchair pundits on the internet make vague references to everything else they do which makes them not worth voting for. Some of the only people in congress who'll stand by their values and whom you know from what to expect. It's contrarian bullshit and I'm sick of it.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are corporatists. They happen to be right on a couple of issues but they are wrong on almost everything else. A list of things they are wrong on: - Civil rights : The Pauls have long been against the Civil Rights act though they recently pretend they aren't. - Environmental regulation : They want none. Our major cities would look like those terrible pictures/video from China. Some of you may be…

I'll address just one of your lefty talking points. "Right to choose : They are against a woman's right to choose." Why don't you finish the sentence, pal? Right to choose what exactly? Many people recognize that women do not have the right to murder their unborn child. One good thing from the Gosnell case is that the reality of your agendas are becoming more exposed by the day.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#29

Post by rubikscube » Fri, May 17, 2013, 2:04 PM UTC

smutticus wrote: post #19

pvnick wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post contains zero information apart from "Here's a bunch of talking points. You go research them" Edit: Ebbv recently changed his post to elaborate on his points, so while his argument now basically boils down to "I'm a hardline liberal and this is where the Pauls and I differ," my post is no longer relevant.

All I learned from your two posts was that you are very angry. ebbv is listing actual positions of the Pauls on various issues. If you think he's wrong then call him out on them.

His points aren't even written coherently, but are slogans. e.g. "right to choose" and "They are against equal pay for equal work laws." He would have to demonstrate where Ron Paul and Rand Paul stated they are for inequality of pay for equal work. When you look at the issues, they aren't the same thing the juvenile slogans make them out to be.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#30

Post by ebbv » Fri, May 17, 2013, 2:05 PM UTC

waffle_ss wrote: post #26

ebbv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhh, no. Regulation is what requires corporations to dispose of pollutants properly instead of just dumping them in rivers. Regulation is what requires corporations to give workers proper safety warnings, equipment and training rather than just putting them in harm's way. Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want. Regulation is what r…

Actually yes, regulation also gives favored status to corporations. For example, the "Big Three" credit rating agencies who were given the federal gov't's blessed "NRSRO" status, who controlled 95% of the market share on credit ratings and who ended up being a a major cause of the 2008 bank failure due to their malfeasance in rating debt. Another example is Bell Systems("Ma Bell")'s stifling of innovation as they hel…

As I said, some regulation is bad just like some criminal laws are bad.

Just because there's been bad regulation doesn't mean you get rid of all of it, just like you wouldn't get rid of all criminal laws just because the system has been abused in the past.