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

231–240 of 313 posts

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#231

Post by jbooth »

scythe wrote: post #224
fl3tch wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Ji…

>But the South was. Yeah, was . Past-tense. The federal government has a wonderful history too in this regard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears >Canada and Switzerland are simply much less diverse Switzerland has four official languages . It's also right next to Germany, which has a history of racism that would scare a Mississippian. Canada, too, has plenty of diversity; 16.2% of people belong to a visible…

The beginning of the "states right" movement in the 60s (1860s or 1960s, take your choice), was primarily motivated by race. Cletus was not an austrian economist.

I think the post you're replying to is going a little too far but there absolutely is a connection between states' rights and racial issues. That's why the stuff in the newsletter is resonating. Those who are in favor of states' rights on other issues (as I am to an extent) would be well-served to recognize this connection.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#232

Post by scythe »

cbs wrote: post #209
joshfraser wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And when I'm out of states that share my views?

Wouldn't you then also be in the wrong country? How could every single state oppose you and the federal government agree?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#233

Post by jbooth »

scythe wrote: post #229
adbge wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. He's the naive one? Frankly, what you're suggesting is absurd and borderline offensive. As if the enlightened North and federal legislation are all that prevents the re-institution of Jim Crow laws! Give me a break.

Let's take a look at what modern-day Mississippi residents actually have to say: http://mississippibelieveit.com/home/ >The “good ole boy” network alive and well in Mississippi? Not hardly. Our new “network” consists of more black elected officials than any other state in the country – a number that grew from a mere 81 in 1970 to 897 in 2000. Mississippi is as racist today as Russia is Communist. Give me a break.

Take a look at the legislative maps.

Creating 99% black districts to consolidate the black vote into the smallest number of seats isn't really support for your position, even if the people doing it are pure post-racial political optimizers (they're not post-racial).

Also, I don't know how old you are, but you do realize that many southern people from 50 short years ago are still alive, right? You're positing that right after the civil rights act was passed, all those people firehosing black people and setting the dogs on them and stuff, they just changed their minds and did a 180? And raised their kids that way?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#234

Post by scarmig »

fragsworth wrote: post #126
scarmig wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, it's illegal to ban abortion in any state. Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, as Ron Paul is personally pro-life. This isn't something that is driven by some deeply-held libertarian principles. Many (most?) libertarians are pro-choice.

You've missed the point entirely. Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, because Ron Paul generally favors state powers and is against federal powers. It has nothing to do with his personal opinion on abortion. He's made this clear several times, but most people don't seem to understand it.

Sigh, there is certainly a point being missed here. Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam? If someone argued that it should... they'd rightly be acknowledged as anti-Islam, because freedom of religion is a human right, and rights aren't just rights for the federal government, but for all the state governments.

Rights are inviolable. If Ron Paul believes states should be able to violate certain rights, he is opposed to those rights. Which is fine: it's a perfectly coherent position that there is no right to privacy and self-determination. But call it what it is.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#235

Post by llambda »

nirvana wrote: post #220
llambda wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't "favor the death penalty" he calls for the execution of people based on their sexual preference in accordance with Biblical law. This man's endorsement was touted by Paul's Iowa campaign. So yes, I find that offensive and reprehensible; Paul should immediately repudiate the endorsement.

You're lying. That's why you're being down voted.

It is not a lie. Rev. Kayser endorsed Ron Paul's campaign[1][2] he also advocates murdering homosexuals[3].

[1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JXXloeP...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/phillip-kayser-ron-...

[3] http://www.biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01...

EDIT: In re to nirvana's misreading of my comments below:

> To claim that Ron Paul endorses murdering homosexuals because some random religious guy who does, endorsed his campaign is a lie.

I never said any such thing. I said that Paul, i.e. the Paul campaign is seemingly directly linked to anti-gay sentiment as evidenced by the endorsement of Rev. Kayser they touted on their website. That's repugnant.

Also, I don't appreciate being called a liar: These aren't my opinions. They are confirmable facts. The campaign was endorsed by a person who wants to murder gays. This endorsement was featured on Paul's website. It's deplorable. I'm only sorry you don't feel the same way.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#236

Post by scarmig »

thebigshane wrote: post #154
scarmig wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe that marriages should be altogether abolished, but before they are abolished you refuse to support efforts to make the discriminatory status quo more equitable... then, yes, you're against gay rights.

I would note that you are on to something: Ron Paul is unlikely to ever "support efforts to make the discriminatory status quo more equitable" but his reasons are likely more constitutionally-based than personal. But, either way, that is not the same thing as "against gay rights". Refusing affirmative action is not the same as promoting the segregation.

But saying "states have the right to legally segregate!" is tantamount to promoting the segregation, even if he adds to that "states should have the right to segregate without federal intervention, even if I personally would oppose that segregation."

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#237

Post by smokeyj »

wycats wrote: post #217
smokeyj wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really believe connecting two computers would not happen without government "bootstrapping"? I hope this is not a serious position. I personally enjoy your simplistic vision of how an economy works. It's as simple as having the government water little seeds of innovation, and to simply hand it off to the "free market" to flourish and capitalize. You see, entrepreneurs operate in a market , in which they compete t…

See my other response on this thread. My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstract.

> My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened

I'm not disagreeing with your historical account, just what you derived from it.

You're essentially arguing networks would never exist unless the U.S government made it happen -- and that's why government must act as an "entrepreneur". I hear you, I'm saying this is naive and without evidence, and most likely exists to support your opinions of central planning. It's been tried, I recommend you investigate the history behind that (hint: it doesn't end well).

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#238

Post by grandalf »

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…

In the majority of recent, real-world instances, local laws have tended to be more liberal than federal laws.

This is an excellent point. It's also far more expensive for lobbying groups to try to influence politicians state by state. Powerful Federal officials represent a one stop shop for buying influence, so decreasing Federal power will reduce corruption.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#239

Post by scythe »

jbooth wrote: post #233
scythe wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take a look at what modern-day Mississippi residents actually have to say: http://mississippibelieveit.com/home/ >The “good ole boy” network alive and well in Mississippi? Not hardly. Our new “network” consists of more black elected officials than any other state in the country – a number that grew from a mere 81 in 1970 to 897 in 2000. Mississippi is as racist today as Russia is Communist. Give me a break.

Take a look at the legislative maps. Creating 99% black districts to consolidate the black vote into the smallest number of seats isn't really support for your position, even if the people doing it are pure post-racial political optimizers (they're not post-racial). Also, I don't know how old you are, but you do realize that many southern people from 50 short years ago are still alive, right? You're positing that rig…

Every state gerrymanders. Mississippi is hardly alone on this.

>In the state of Ohio, a conversation between Republican officials was recorded that demonstrated that redistricting was being done to aid their political candidates. Furthermore, the discussions assessed race of voters as a factor in redistricting, because African-Americans had backed Democratic candidates. Republicans apparently removed approximately 13,000 African American voters from the district of Jim Raussen, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives, in an attempt to tip the scales in what was once a competitive district for Democratic candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States

That's coming at you from blue-collar freezing-cold northern Ohio.

Furthermore, "right after" the Civil Rights act was passed? It was passed a full 47 years ago.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#240

Post by wycats »

smokeyj wrote: post #237
wycats wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my other response on this thread. My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstract.

> My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened I'm not disagreeing with your historical account, just what you derived from it. You're essentially arguing networks would never exist unless the U.S government made it happen -- and that's why government must act as an "entrepreneur". I hear you, I'm saying this is naive and without evidence, and most likely exists to support your opinions of central pla…

Your argument here takes my claim that there are cases where government infrastructure bootstrapping (interstate highways, Internet) is useful and concludes that I would be in favor of a command-and-control economy.

This is a classic reductio ad absurdum fallacy, and only works if your concept of how the economy works is very ideological.

Post reply on HN