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

Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 313 posts

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#191

Post by wycats »

WalterBright wrote: post #170
wycats wrote: post #155

It's not surprising that Ron Paul would be against SOPA. That said, libertarians like Paul would have been against funding the projects that led to the Internet, and are today against funding similar government projects that might lead to future innovations. In many cases, innovations are bootstrapped by government funding or research, and then handed off to an appropriate role by the free market. Libertarians are us…

It's often assumed that without the ARPA the internet never would have existed. ARPA, however, is just one of many "internets" that sprung up over the years. There was also FIDOnet, Prodigy, BIX, Compuserve, MCInet, etc. Everyone with more than one computer thought to hook them together. Heck, even some friends of mine invented their own internet back in the 70's. If it wasn't ARPA, it would have been something else.

The examples you listed arrived after ARPA. CompuServe, which arrived pretty early in the greater scheme, was founded in 1969 as a time sharing computer service. It wasn't until quite a bit later that it became a packet-switched computer network, likely in response to the success of ARPAnet's implementation.

In contrast, the plans for ARPAnet were finished in 1968, and the system was operational in 1969. The concept was pretty pie in the sky at the time, and it's likely that the success of ARPA led to commercial implementations of packet-switched networks.

Additionally, the early private networks did not have the character of the "public Internet" which is a crucial component of the Internet we know and love today. Indeed, the reason we care about SOPA is that the public Internet, and not a patchwork of private internets, won the day.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#192

Post by scythe »

fl3tch wrote: post #181
roguecoder wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies. I don't understand why people think he's an honest straight-shooter, any more than I understood that meme when it was applied to McCain. He's a politician playing a roll, that's all. He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. It's the…

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. Peopl…

>he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas.

No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy, and he holds to that position even when states pass laws he disagrees with.

Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes; they're considered some of the freest countries in the world.

This is a guy who thinks abortion is the most evil thing in the world and still opposes federal laws banning abortion because he thinks it's a state issue. I disagree with him about abortion, but the fact remains: he's not some scheming ne'er-do-well who wants to bring back Jim Crow laws, he's a consistent, ideological antifederalist who thinks decentralization is the way to go.

In the majority of recent, real-world instances, local laws have tended to be more liberal than federal laws. We've seen this with gay marriage, we've seen it with medical marijuana, and we've seen it with election reform (see also Calif. Prop. 14); we may very well soon see it with recreational marijuana.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#193

Post by bmelton »

azar1 wrote: post #188
bmelton wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't heard anything from him that sounds anything like that at all, and it definitely isn't how I understand his position to be. In the absence of asking the man directly, can you cite a source?

HR 2533: Sanctity of Life Act [1] "Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life." [1] http://www.dailypaul.com/122553/ron-paul-hr-2533-sanctity-of...

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen the text of this before now.

It's interesting how interpretations are so easily drawn, because while you cite the "Deems human life" as synopsis, I draw "each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state" as justification that it simply allows states to have more sovereignty.

That said, I agree that the language, which I don't personally agree with (or have much opinion on) would likely tie the hands of states trying to enforce or enact pro-choice legislation.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#194

Post by danenania »

aamar wrote: post #156
danenania wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The newsletter debacle is 'damning' simply because the US corporate media has decreed it so. The newsletters are definitely offensive, and are reasonable cause for disliking Paul as a candidate and perhaps even a person, but as others have pointed out, they are relatively mild as far as political skeletons in the closet go. If the media favored him, they could be easily downplayed as have been countless much more ser…

You're inappropriately comparing the actions of candidates with people who have actual power. Neither George W. Bush nor John Yoo is running for office. Ron Paul is, and as a non-leadership representative, he's not in a position to affect policy in any significant way. He hasn't had the opportunity do things that Bush did. In order to assess him as a candidate, we have to understand how he acted given his opportuniti…

First of all, Ron Paul has significant power in congress. He is a member of two important committees and was instrumental, as a recent example, in strengthening the auditing standards for the Federal Reserve. He also has significant ideological influence on the Republican party, whether they like it or not. The rhetoric of the tea party movement was in many ways a direct attempt to co-opt Paul's support. He has used this power in near perfect accordance with his principles, stood against reckless war, attacks on civil liberties, favoritism for Wall St. and special interests, and economic plunder.

There have been plenty of opportunities for Paul to sell out, as there are for every successful politician, and he has rejected these opportunities at every turn. Contrast this with Obama's record: a supporter of the patriot act from the beginning, a friend of Wall Street, a believer in empire, in favor of suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens, in favor of the drug war, tolerant of illegal spying on citizens, tolerant of torture. Obama has broken promises and sold out the American people time and time again. It seems pretty clear who has the better batting average.

Paul is far from perfect, but the only alternative at this point is the status quo or worse for the next four years, and believing in that is a lot more insane and dangerous than any of Paul's most controversial beliefs. In fact, when you look pragmatically at the scope of what Paul would actually be capable of as president, you see that he could only really affect policy in the moderate and generally popular portions of his platform--ending permanent war, ending the drug war, vetoes on overspending. His more 'fringe' positions are well beyond the purview of the executive branch, and his principles explicitly preclude him from overstepping those bounds.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#195

Post by joshfraser »

fl3tch wrote: post #181
roguecoder wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies. I don't understand why people think he's an honest straight-shooter, any more than I understood that meme when it was applied to McCain. He's a politician playing a roll, that's all. He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. It's the…

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. Peopl…

It's easier to switch states than to switch countries. If you don't like the draconian laws in your state you can move to another one that shares your views.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#196

Post by whycombine »

scythe wrote: post #192
fl3tch wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. Peopl…

>he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy, and he holds to that position even when states pass laws he disagrees with. Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes; they're considered some of the freest coun…

he's a consistent, ideological antifederalist who thinks decentralization is the way to go.

Wouldn't that actually make him a federalist? Federalists support the type of government called a federation, which is what the Articles of Confederation originally created and the Constitution sort of maintained.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#197

Post by dreamdu5t »

maratd wrote: post #187
fl3tch wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. Peopl…

> He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought. Protecting life from violence is a primary responsibility of government. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a life at any point between conception and birth, you would be against abortion. Simple as that. If you want to fault him for believin…

The fetus is trespassing on the women's body, and it would be self-defense to remove the invader.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#198

Post by m3koval »

dubfan wrote: post #130
dantheman wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From his book liberty defined: http://libertydefined.org/issue/17 No one person has perfect knowledge as to man's emergence on this earth. Yet almost everyone has a strong religious, scientific, or emotional opinion he or she considers gospel. The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at t…

For Paul to claim that someone could hold a "scientific opinion as gospel" shows that he has either forgotten his scientific education that he no doubt received during his Ph.D. candidacy, or that his meaning was lost in his sweeping rhetoric. In this age of climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation the most powerful country in the world needs a Commander-in-Chief that demonstrates the ability…

Nit: Ron Paul has an MD, not a Ph.D. He was a OB/GYN before being elected to congress.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#199

Post by fl3tch »

scythe wrote: post #192
fl3tch wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. Peopl…

>he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy, and he holds to that position even when states pass laws he disagrees with. Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes; they're considered some of the freest coun…

> Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes

But the South was. You're ignoring the evidence of history. Canada and Switzerland are simply much less diverse, and it's pretty naive to think that racists in Mississippi and Alabama, who never went away, wouldn't seize on the chance to reinstitute something resembling Jim Crow laws.

Edit: > No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. He's a states rights guy because he's a Christian fundamentalist who wants the power to enforce his provincial values on others, and the federal government gets in the way of that.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#200

Post by webista »

It should have been more convincing for me if he instead made this statement before the goDaddy boycott, and net giants public opposition against SOPA, not a few days before the election circus.

Politics is still politics, and this kind of rhetorical display and timing have long been around for centuries as politicians' device that pander to the media to get the favor from the people. I do not question his principles and previous acts, it's the timing that's fishy.

Post reply on HN