Ron Paul speaks against SOPA • Hacker News Board

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#111

Post by ebiester » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:24 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #86

veidr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeremiah Wright isn't my cup of tea, either, but 'anti-American'? That's absurd.

'anti-American'? That's absurd. Well, it's not my phrasing. - - - - - Begin Quote [1] An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans. "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sin…

Sounds like many of the biblical prophets to me. It's someone who took his cues from Jeremiah.

I never understood what was the big deal - it's just someone who takes seriously their religion. (And all of his accusations in that quote are factual. The crack epidemic was largely CIA-fueled as a way to funnel money to Central American rebels, and the rest is easy enough to verify.)

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#112

Post by TallGuyShort » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:24 PM UTC

Good on Ron Paul! I've expressed this sentiment on here before, but it still bothers me that so much of what I read in opposition to SOPA is linked to actual piracy. Sure, I think that DRM is ridiculous and counter-productive, but piracy only serves to legitimize the claims of SOPA supporters, and undermine the claims of it's opponents that it would do no good. Please, if you oppose SOPA, stop using rhetoric from sites that appear to condone piracy.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#113

Post by jiggy2011 » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:30 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #79

cheez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this as follows: "I should force people, at the threat of violence, to give me 24 days of paid vacation." That's pretty much what you are saying. I agree with you: the free market doesn't provide everything but that is what charity is for. Government is not charity. What kind of charity is it when they will send you to jail or bankrupt you for not tithing on time or enough?

The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. So if a billionaire for example has a relative who suffers from a rare type of cancer for example they will be likely to donate a disproportionately massive amount of money to research and care for that particular typ…

If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that.

To take an extreme example. Let's say that as a society we decide that young children living homeless on the street is a bad thing and that some provision should be provided for this. However let's say you have a handful of people who are the owners of the owners & directors of huge monopoly companies, their personal income put together might be comparable to the rest of the population (basically the 1%/99% thing).

Now if these guys decide that they don't really care about homeless children because they all follow a religion which tells them that children are evil. Now the people who want to do something about the homeless children problem have a much more restricted amount of money with which to do that.

What this really implies is that if you have more money available to donate then you have a better understanding of what is important in society.

So yes, if the government comes in and forces the rich guys to hand over some of their money to solve the problem they are going to be pissed but if not then countless more people would be at least equally pissed that nothing can be done about a massive problem facing society.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#114

Post by toyg » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:37 PM UTC

cheez wrote: post #49

toyg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I read this as follows: "I should force people, at the threat of violence, to give me 24 days of paid vacation." That's pretty much what you are saying. I agree with you: the free market doesn't provide everything but that is what charity is for. Government is not charity. What kind of charity is it when they will send you to jail or bankrupt you for not tithing on time or enough?

There is no threat of violence, workers' rights are a civil matter, penalties are financial. So yeah, society should force wealthy people, at the threat of financial ruin, to give their workers a decent lifestyle, to compensate for the unfair advantage they enjoyed (in terms of education and family networks as well as purely financial) and to basically let them call the shots on everything else.

Obviously, as a social-democratic position, this moves from an implicit critical view of original capitalism, i.e. rich people exploiting the poor for financial gain, as observed through post-XVII-century history (more so in Europe than in the US, I guess, which might explain why it's not as widely accepted a concept over there). Times when Charity was widely praised and practice, but clearly was never enough.

Obviously, if all economic disparity was eliminated overnight, things would be different. I look forward to the 1% renouncing their fortunes in order to establish a free-market utopia where such laws wouldn't be necessary.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#115

Post by cbs » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:40 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #99

cbs wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

promoted anti-abortion legislation at Federal level Ron Paul: States Rights, unless its something I'm against. Just like any politician I guess.

I'm not a lawyer, but IIRC that act merely made it legal for states to prohibit abortion if they so desired. I'm pro-choice, but think that abortion, much like murder should be decided at the state level.

Fair enough. I didn't see the legislation, as it was presented in the grandparent post just gave me a laugh at the apparent irony.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#116

Post by notahacker » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:41 PM UTC

cheez wrote: post #49

toyg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I read this as follows: "I should force people, at the threat of violence, to give me 24 days of paid vacation." That's pretty much what you are saying. I agree with you: the free market doesn't provide everything but that is what charity is for. Government is not charity. What kind of charity is it when they will send you to jail or bankrupt you for not tithing on time or enough?

Most Europeans also find the fringe libertarian argument that government collecting and distributing rent is morally wrong because of the use of "coercion" a little odd. There's no more or less coercion when the government (or private individuals) enforce particular rules essential to the function of the market system US property-rights libertarians hold so sacrosanct: namely property and contract enforcement. Both have a high degree of social acceptance generally ensuring people will comply, but both are ultimately preserved by implied violence, be that legislative or physical. So when it comes down to it, all property rights libertarians tacitly acknowledge the use of implied violence to collect rent is acceptable and sometimes necessary. If any corporation has a right to force me to pay to live on land they acquired through some historical sleight of business, and then dispose of the collected rent how they see fit, why exactly is it morally objectionable for the government to do the same thing?

It's a more constructive debate when you start analysing on utilitarian terms whether there's any practical benefit to having 24 hour weeks, whether the market tends to underprovide them and whether regulation is the optimal solution.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#117

Post by chernevik » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:42 PM UTC

jliechti1 wrote: post #101

The censorship of Ron Paul really is pretty incredible. The Daily Show clip was already mentioned in this thread - here's another example I noticed the other day in the Chicago Tribune: I just pulled out three random stories: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-io... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-ri... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-... No…

CNBC had an interview where they basically let him talk for almost half an hour. He was great for five minutes, okay through to ten, and then the wheels just came off. He couldn't answer obvious follow-up questions (some with obvious Ron Paul answers). He was bamboozled by questions on the gold standard from people who actually speak monetary policy. Toward the end he was hardly coherent.

I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there.

I suspect reporters who have seen the guy up close see this and don't bother with him. I think they're too invested in their self-image as news filters to provide deep, even-handed coverage and let their audience decide.

EDITED TO ADD: As noted below, I can't find a link to the interview I had in mind. So I'll walk back what I've said here a step or two: That's my impression of how the guy seems after extended scrutiny. But I can't now point to a document that would support that impression as well as I'd like.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#118

Post by maratd » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:49 PM UTC

jaysonelliot wrote: post #66

I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. But none of that really matters. He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the constitution. Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a historian running for…

I feel the same way. In fact, I'm sure most of Ron Paul's supports feel the same way. I find his foreign policy views deplorable and offensive.

You know what? I will still be voting for him.

I'm tired. I'm so tired of the lying. Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. will say anything to get elected. Once elected, they all behave the same way.

I'd rather have an honest man I disagree with in the White House, than a man who says one thing, but does another.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#119

Post by danenania » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:50 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #45

rosariom wrote: post #39

Ron Paul message resonates with people because he is talking about something none of the other candidates are talking about: returning freedoms and sanity to America. It would be hard to rollback all the damage done by the likes of Obama and his predecessors but I think it can be achieved gradually and with some culture changes in America. This is a great country and I hope to see its freedoms preserved and reinstate…

"sanity" being "what you agree with". That's why we should flag political articles and leave them to other sites.

"sanity" being "what you agree with" is generally a truism in any context.

HN is in a unique position to offer high quality discussion on topics that have become extremely important to hackers, much more important than some nostalgic ideas on what HN is 'supposed' to be. This is no time to stick our heads in the sand. We have a powerful platform and a powerful community here and it would be very foolish to waste them given the seriousness of what we face.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#120

Post by scarmig » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 4:55 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #33

makmanalp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful. Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally accurate, but you need to understand what these represent. First, there's the normal crap about taking things out of context... But more specifically, these are decidedly not things that Paul ever said or wrote. These are things that somebody else wrote in a newsletter that was usi…

That's not a really plausible story.

Some of the quotes were not only written in a newsletter with Ron Paul's name on it, but were actually signed "Ron Paul," and written in the first person talking about why he voted a certain way. And he's refused to name these mysterious ghostwriters who wrote it.

And when these came up in the 1990s... he didn't claim they weren't him or even disavow them! He just said that they were taken out of context, not that he wasn't responsible for them.

I really don't give a huge crap about what it says about Ron Paul's deepest darkest prejudices--I'm a policy man, myself--but to simply try to shrug it off and say "I disavow these things" while also saying things like the Civil Rights Act should be repealed? Call me unsurprised if people are upset about it.

The Reverend Wright deal is a weak comparison. Something analogous would be if, in Dreams from My Father, Obama had said "I wish a Mao would rise in the United States to give the capitalist running dogs what they deserve." And given what he's given shit for... do you seriously not believe he'd get shit for that? It'd be an instant disqualification, even if the quote were taken out of context or even written by a ghostwriter.