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.

#81

Post by sultezdukes » Sat, May 18, 2013, 1:15 AM UTC

magnusj wrote: post #80

pvnick wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the laissez faire regulation of killer devices in the US is, in my view, a huge infringement on freedom That is some professionally constructed doublespeak. Orwell would be impressed!

How??? Everything in that sentence is true. The US has a laissez faire regulation of killing devices/guns/assualt weapons. And my view is that it's an infringement on my freedom (since I have to factor in a greater risk of getting killed when being in public spaces in the US). Please provide some evidence that those two facts are false.

* And my view is that it's an infringement on my freedom (since I have to factor in a greater risk of getting killed when being in public spaces in the US). Please provide some evidence that those two facts are false.*

So by your logic, any place where you're not locked up in a padded room, protected by armed guards is an infringement on your freedom because you have a greater chance of being killed.

Listen, you can be opposed to supposedly "laissez faire regulation" of guns because of your ideological persuasion, but stop lying about it being an infringement on your freedom.

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

#82

Post by magnusj » Sat, May 18, 2013, 1:29 AM UTC

rubikscube wrote: post #36

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…

If you're so against things that can kill, let's see you call for the complete prohibition of alcohol. Many people die from alcohol-fueled murders, as well as drunk driving, and alcohol is still legal. Alcohol is not NEEDED BY ANYONE. I am making the devil's advocate case. At least with guns, the primary purpose by the majority is for self defense against criminals. It is reprehensible to see the inconsistency of you…

You're fighting a strawman. I didn't say anything about complete prohibtion. I said that in my view a laissez faire, i.e. no or almost none, regulation of killing devices is an infringement of my freedom.

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

#83

Post by mgarfias » Sat, May 18, 2013, 1:59 AM 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…

The EPA exists to allow companies to pollute and skim some tax dollars in the process. In the time before zoning laws and complex regulation, if a company dumped something toxic, the legal frameworks were in place to sue them for the harm they had done. Now they're allowed to pollute a set amount via a regulators ok.

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

#84

Post by mgarfias » Sat, May 18, 2013, 1:59 AM 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…

The EPA exists to allow companies to pollute and skim some tax dollars in the process. In the time before zoning laws and complex regulation, if a company dumped something toxic, the legal frameworks were in place to sue them for the harm they had done. Now they're allowed to pollute a set amount via a regulators ok.