Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

camtyler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

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

#61

Post by anon1385 »

rubikscube wrote: post #32
jimzvz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.

Succinctly and accurately put. I know there's more that agree on HN, but those who repeat the government lines verbatim from their government school seventh-grade textbooks seem to be the most vocal around here.

Maybe they are vocal because they don't want to die in their workplace? It seems quite reasonable to have strong view on such a topic. You view humans as disposable resources for making profit. Most of us view humans as human beings. Don't be surprised when your fringe views meet with opposition.

Some recent libertarian deregulation success stories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Thane_building_collapse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Pakistan_garment_factory_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_fire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos...

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

#62

Post by bones6 »

threeseed wrote: post #42
rubinelli wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when you don't agree with the guy, it's refreshing seeing someone defend a position because he believes in it, and not because his job depends on it.

it's refreshing seeing someone defend a position because he believes in it, and not because his job depends on it You might be want to be careful with that line. Rand Paul is not stupid. He knows how critical the "internet generation" was to his father's success. You only had to look at how Ron Paul's supporters cleverly involved themselves in the mechanics of the primary process to know that this was a group that pu…

He's not ignorant of his base by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's still safe to say he and his father were libertarian freedom fighter hipsters, way before it was cool.

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

#63

Post by nitid_name »

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.

Try using "Regulatory Capture" as a buzz word in these sorts of discussions. It carries the entire weight of the argument in one convenient term.

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

#64

Post by threeseed »

rubikscube wrote: post #38
magnusj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is first and foremost social conservative, leaning libertarian on a few issues, and a state rights man on most issues (which isn't really about freedom. It's born out of a realization by reactionary southern people, that they can't get enough national support to implement their desired anti-freedom policies on a federal level). For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex…

homosexual "marriage" eh? I guess you like being a useful idiot. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-ga... "It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get the…

You do know that ONE person does not speak for the hundreds of millions of gay people worldwide, right ?

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

#65

Post by rubikscube »

ebbv wrote: post #25
waffle_ss wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A corporation doesn't provide its services at the barrel of a gun.

ebbv, who do you not give a second thought to not returning their phone call? Someone from the government, or someone from Microsoft or Ford?

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

#66

Post by deelowe »

ebbv wrote: post #25
waffle_ss wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you're using the right terms for what you're describing. You actually seem to be against capitalism and an unregulated free market society. That is, you are against a world without regulation where the free market is allowed to run freely unchecked by government. However, this is not corporatism as it has nothing to do with corporations. In fact, corporations could be made illegal in capitalistic society by stating that business can only be conducted between individuals. One(capitalism and the free market) does not imply the other(corporations). I'm not sure if you'd still be against this(free market capitalism without corporations), but I imagine you would.

I think you might need to read up a bit more on capitalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, crony capitalism, and perhaps marxism or communism. It might help you make your points better. There's a bit of each(and possibly others) mixed in your views.

Ron and Rand are libertarians. Also, Rand is more moderate and conservative(AKA republican in this case) than Ron. They don't always share the same views. For example, I doubt Rand would push the gold standard like Ron has in the past. This is one of the reasons I'd support Rand, but had my concerns about Ron. To be clear though, they are not corporatists. In fact, they(like most libertarians) very much believe that crony capitalism through extensive lobbying and regulation that prevents new markets from being created is precisely what's caused the somewhat recent rise of corporatism in the US.

As I'm merely trying to educate and not criticize you, so I won't go into why I disagree with your viewpoints. Though I'd like to point you to the telecom, banking, and broadcast industries to see what happens when government applies strong regulations on "corporations."

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

#67

Post by aaronbrethorst »

rubikscube wrote: post #29
smutticus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, Paul wasn't in the Senate for their 2009 vote on Ledbetter. But, do you honestly think that someone who opposes anti-segregation laws because they 'tell business what to do' would have voted for an equal pay bill?

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

#68

Post by nhangen »

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.

'But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.'

This is where you show your true colors.

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

#69

Post by threeseed »

tocomment wrote: post #56
magnusj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is first and foremost social conservative, leaning libertarian on a few issues, and a state rights man on most issues (which isn't really about freedom. It's born out of a realization by reactionary southern people, that they can't get enough national support to implement their desired anti-freedom policies on a federal level). For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex…

Most of those sound like wedge issues though, that are pumped up by the media to divide and distract citizens so they don't ask for better healthcare, more freedoms, etc.

No. People across the world do genuinely care about right to choose and same sex marriage.

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

#70

Post by rubikscube »

mikeash wrote: post #51
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.

Rand Paul is a conspiracy nut who thinks the UN is going to take away our guns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/r... "You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies...." It frightens me mildly that someone like this has power, although he's certainly far from the worst in Congress.

Yes, I forgot that the UN has been a champion of the right to bear arms. Don't they subsidize the NRA?

Seriously, I'll trust Rand Paul, the one who actually has experience in politics, including the UN, rather than the one throwing the conspiracy smears.

Post reply on HN