Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President • Hacker News Board

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#191

Post by researcher88 » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 3:28 PM UTC

mkautzm wrote: post #115

MCRed wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider losing %98 of its value "stable"? The US Dollar has lost at least that, probably closer to %99.9999, though it's harder to measure now that the fed is not giving us reliable stats anymore. Do you realize the FED is a private bank, owned by the upper %1 of the %1? And that giving them an interest rate on ever dollar in circulation was probably the worst example of a government granted monopoly ever? Do…

> Do you consider losing %98 of its value "stable"? Yeah, I don't understand how inflation works either.

Well you can't really be a Keynesian and think inflation is bad. Who does it favor? Governmentts and the rich who get the new money first.

For regular people, it encourages them to spend money now and not save. And the only way around it is to invest in the stock market etc where they may make mistakes.

As for your implied notion that it's been stable inflation, I'm not so sure. In the last 40 years, the average price of key foods have increased 400 to 500% when agricultural science and distribution has improved dramatically.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#192

Post by DickingAround » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 3:58 PM UTC

geoffpado wrote: post #33

DickingAround wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are not as worrisome as government because their power to act on that data is less. No company in america is going to bust down my door with rifles or throw me in prison because I think things they don't like. The worst they can do (assuming the government doesn't totally break down) is refuse to do business with me. But the government can do a lot worse and have a history of doing a lot worse.

No, but corporations can lean on the government to do that on their behalf. Such as forcibly evicting a tenant from a foreclosed home [1] or confiscating equipment from a journalist who wrote about your unreleased products [2]. [1]: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/10/15/florissant-police-arr... [2]: http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computer...

Agreed. If the corps use the government to do their bidding that is bad. In the case of this candidate I think the pitch is that he won't allow that either (or at least that' me general understanding of the libertarian position).

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#193

Post by DickingAround » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 4:03 PM UTC

sgift wrote: post #186

DickingAround wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are not as worrisome as government because their power to act on that data is less. No company in america is going to bust down my door with rifles or throw me in prison because I think things they don't like. The worst they can do (assuming the government doesn't totally break down) is refuse to do business with me. But the government can do a lot worse and have a history of doing a lot worse.

Psychic terror, working against you ever getting a job again if you don't "behave", colluding to make sure you are held down (e.g. your wage, benefits, whatever) .. and so on. People who think that physical violence - the one the government reserves for itself - is the worst form of violence live a very sheltered life. I envy them.

Help me understand this better. It seems like being blacklisted by a big company or even entire industry is bad, even life altering. But people get serious PTSD or sometimes even die from one single 5-minute fight with a cop.

Furthermore, I think shunning and blacklisting should be a protected form of individual choice. For example, I'm just not going to hang out with someone that's a racist. That is and should be 100% my choice. But I don't have a right to physically harm them. I'll argue that this arrangement of making violence special and different from harsh-words or shunning will make for a more functional society because we don't always all have to agree but we can still live in one place together.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#194

Post by aagha » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 5:12 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #50

lubos wrote: post #30

This is not surprising. Rand Paul, similar to his father Ron Paul, has very libertarian political views which means they prefer no government involvement, not just in the Internet but anywhere. This is not as good as it sounds. For example, he doesn't support FED in controlling money supply. But FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. He doesn't like energy regulations and b…

Alright, two things.. (1) It seems you are just dismissing him and his father have similar ideas, which aren't necessarily any crazier than every other politician ever (i.e. social security is so awesome). Rand and Ron Paul both supported STATES rights, which lets be honest, makes it possible to move between states and have different taxes, laws, and unique experiences. This leads me to my second point... (2) "His re…

> (2b) Supporting the policy of letting the states determine their laws seems probably the most American thing to do. If you don't like it, you just move to a different state where people are like minded.

Ugh. This is the kind of elitist self-righteous perspective that keeps me from wanting to have anything to do with the far right. "Just move to a different state"?! You probably have the means to do so. MOST people do not. Even you are probably unlikely to say, oh, I think this state sucks, I'm going to pick-up and leave tomorrow.

People have families, jobs (and new jobs to get), kids, commitments, ailing parents, etc. Get off your high horse and stop thinking the rest of the world is just like you.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#195

Post by maratd » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

s0x wrote: post #189

maratd wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mandatory also means you might be subject to fines So you write me that ticket and I shove it down my pants, wipe my ass with it, and throw it in your direction. What then? You want to know what happens when you don't pay the government's fines? http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jai... So you're OK with throwing people in jail for not performing a medical procedure on their children? I just w…

> So you're OK with throwing people in jail for not performing a medical procedure on their children? Yes.

> Yes.

Thank you. That's the truth. I very rarely find myself a moderate on things, but both sides of this argument make me sick.

The selfish parents who claim vaccines cause autism and who are really riding on herd immunity, while avoiding the relatively minor risks involved with vaccination ... and people like you who think that the solution is to use force and throw these people in jail.

A little shaming will go a long way. Both sides have jumped to absurd extremes.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#196

Post by unprepare » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 6:23 PM UTC

nesicus wrote: post #188

discardorama wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Laws related to abolition, marriage, etc. is not necessarily religious Pray tell me what non-religious arguments you have against same-sex marriage and abortion (I assume you meant "abortion" instead of "abolition").

you say that as if you can't imagine that there are any or something. so silly. um, okay: government has no business in marriage. abortion is arbitrarily deciding you have autonomy over the life of another possibly intelligent being for political reasons. I'm in favor of self-ownership and property rights--I don't know about you. none of these things have anything to do with religion. (hint: I am not religious.)

>government has no business in marriage

I see this rhetoric a lot and would love an actual explanation. Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Health and other insurance benefits? Managing the custody of children of divorce? How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage? Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage; the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#197

Post by opo » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 8:49 PM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #29

woah wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No explanation in this comment either

People have been conditioned into thinking libertarians are the devil, basically.

It might be more general than that. People here (and most other forums) seem conditioned to treat politics like sports teams and they will ignore all the horrible ideas their "team" has just as long as they can beat the other team. It is pretty sad...

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#198

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 10:32 PM UTC

forgotpasswd3x wrote: post #154

fleitz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is social security not a ponzi scheme? The returns generated depend on finding new investors in the scheme, if current investors pull out the scheme cannot return promised benefits to current investors. This is pretty much the precise definition of a ponzi scheme and why the scheme faces certain bankruptcy with out a significant rise in births.

> This is pretty much the precise definition of a ponzi scheme and why the scheme faces certain bankruptcy with out a significant rise in births. Or we could just remove the cap for social security tax.

[deleted]

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#199

Post by maratd » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 10:49 PM UTC

unprepare wrote: post #196

nesicus wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you say that as if you can't imagine that there are any or something. so silly. um, okay: government has no business in marriage. abortion is arbitrarily deciding you have autonomy over the life of another possibly intelligent being for political reasons. I'm in favor of self-ownership and property rights--I don't know about you. none of these things have anything to do with religion. (hint: I am not religious.)

>government has no business in marriage I see this rhetoric a lot and would love an actual explanation. Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Health and other insurance benefits? Managing the custody of children of divorce? How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage? Because as it stands today, the government is in…

> Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished?

Yes. (I am married)

> How do you propose to handle Estate planning?

Contract law. Before you get married, sign a contract that outlines everything.

> Health and other insurance benefits?

Nothing to do with government or at least, should have nothing to do with government. The insurance companies can structure it however they want.

> Managing the custody of children of divorce?

Contract law. See above. Marriage at its heart is a business arrangement. You share resources and work for a common purpose. It's almost like you're starting a company with a partner.

Would you start a business without signing a contract that didn't outline not only how the arrangement would function, but what would happen if it were to come to an end? Of course you wouldn't.

> How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage?

It can be involved in marriage through contract law. The same way it's involved in any business arrangement where a contract was signed.

In other words, if need be, one party can take another to court over the breach of a contract.

The issue today is that the government defines that contract. It specifies who the contract can be between (a man and a woman), specifies what happens when that contract ends, what benefits accrue, it essentially controls everything about that contract ... why not let the people choose what form they want their marriage to take? Why force everyone into the same universal contract that in the end doesn't really fit anyone properly because it's so unbelievably general?

> Because as it stands today, the government is inextricably a part of the concept of marriage

Unfortunately.

> the government must recognize a marriage in order for the benefits of marriage to work.

Resource sharing is by far the greatest benefit and it has nothing to do with the government. Yes, tax benefits and such stem directly from the government ... but that's about it.

Re: Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

#200

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 11:14 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #199

unprepare wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>government has no business in marriage I see this rhetoric a lot and would love an actual explanation. Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Health and other insurance benefits? Managing the custody of children of divorce? How exactly do you imagine the government not being involved in marriage? Because as it stands today, the government is in…

> Do you propose that tax benefits for couples should be abolished? Yes. (I am married) > How do you propose to handle Estate planning? Contract law. Before you get married, sign a contract that outlines everything. > Health and other insurance benefits? Nothing to do with government or at least, should have nothing to do with government. The insurance companies can structure it however they want. > Managing the cust…

> Would you start a business without signing a contract that didn't outline not only how the arrangement would function, but what would happen if it were to come to an end?

Lots of people do without a lot of specific detail on that, because they take advantage of government-created standard business forms that, in addition to providing special advantages not available through contract alone, also provide well-tested default handling of common situations, including dissolution.

Much like marriage.

> It can be involved in marriage through contract law. The same way it's involved in any business arrangement where a contract was signed.

But, if you want to compare marriage to a business arrangement, you should also be aware that government doesn't just manage business arrangements through general contract law, it defines a whole bunch of special standard forms for business entities which people form (various classes of corporations, LPs, LLPs, LLLPs, LLCs, heck, even general partnerships have a separate body of law from general contract law.)

So, the only way marriage is different is that government hasn't provided a whole bunch of different special forms for couples with different priorities and goals.