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

261–270 of 313 posts

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#261

Post by ataggart »

scarmig wrote: post #236
thebigshane wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

And saying "states have the right to legalize drugs!" is tantamount to promoting drug use?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#262

Post by ocdprogrammer »

wycats wrote: post #240
smokeyj wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Don't forget the initial line of deduction: Paul=Libertarian & Libertarian+StateResearch!=Love & StateResearch=Internet => Paul+Internet!=Love. He just wanted to prove that not only StateReserch=>Internet.And there are some other weak implications there.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#263

Post by thebigshane »

scarmig wrote: post #234
fragsworth wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cert…

I would like to attempt a thought experiment and see if you could buy this scenario:

Imagine if Ron Paul becomes President (yeah, right, but hang with me) and he does give states the right to do all kinds of things within the constitution. (Side note: I think banning the practice of Islam is unconstitutional due to the first amendment)

So let's say that some Southern states ban abortion and ban gay marriage. That sucks but there is some elegance here that you didn't notice. California is not about to ban abortion or gay marriage, in fact now they have fully promoted gay marriage, and legalized marijuana. Colorado has done all that and decided to exempt themselves from all of the SOPA stuff as well (they aren't as under Hollywood's thumb as California is).

While it sucks for those gay couples in the south while they grow up, it should be obvious that they (and others that support these rights) will move to a new state. A state can't hold those couples in their state and refuse them to leave and states can't go to war with each other. So now you have two groups of people: those people in more "civilized" places like California and Colorado are happy and those people in the traditional south are happy too.

There is an elegance in letting complex, controversial issues be decided at lower levels and leave the top level government only worry about states violating a core set of rules. And you better believe that a constitutionalist like Ron Paul would enforce state adherence to the Bill of Rights. I would hope that at least that part would be indisputable.

I agree it can be messy. I agree that some people don't get what they want immediately (they might have to relocate). But at least they don't have to leave the country. At least they still eventually find like-minded people and influence their own local governments to get what they want.

Another point I want to make is that marriage is not a right explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and neither is having an abortion or smoking weed. And you'll only hear a libertarian note that the 9th amendment acknowledges rights outside of those explicitly guaranteed. So while you believe that these are rights (and I agree with you) not everyone does, and more importantly, not all of the Judicial branch does.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#264

Post by smokeyj »

wycats wrote: post #259
VMG wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstract. Then you aren't allowed to speculate abstractly on how economies work. You are relying on one data point with no control group.

You know, I've just about had enough of libertarians and conservatives claiming such moral superiority of their economic world view that they perceive any disagreement with it as obviously wrong. I was replying to a parent comment that claimed that ARPA wasn't particularly important in the greater scheme of things ("If it wasn't ARPA, it would have been something else"). I replied by pointing out that even when ARPA…

I demand half your salary. My economic theory permits me to take this from you. Don't worry, it's supported by academia and Paul Krugman, therefore you love it. Following your logic, this represents virtue.

Yes, there's a wide array of economic theories. It's the equivalent of religion. Everyone has their own belief. Libertarians believe people shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. Why are you against choice? Shouldn't I get to choose how I invest my earnings? Do your theories trump my liberty?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#265

Post by thebigshane »

jbooth wrote: post #244
grandalf wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any centrally controlled system will edge one way or another compared to decentralized units. If you take one example (a specific race issue) and generalize, then you'll conclude (as you seem to have done) that centralized control is superior. The benefits of a large shift in power toward the states are too numerous to list, but to name a few: - Look at the issues discussed in national political campaigns. They are u…

You're missing the point - I'm making a historical point. I'm generally of the opinion that more states' rights is generally better as long as it doesn't create a game-theory zero-sum clusterfuck of misaligned incentives, like taxes for crossing state borders or something like that. Some things need a federal guarantee but many can/should be devolved to the states.

You are absolutely right. And that is what makes the constitution important, to be that "federal guarantee".

I'd like to comfort you that "taxes for crossing state borders" could never happen but I'm not sure I can justify that. I was hoping the Commerce Clause would say something there but I couldn't find anything. Maybe somebody else could find something on this bit of a hole in the libertarian philosophy?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#266

Post by jduran »

cheez wrote: post #46
llambda wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most worrisome is that while these issues have come to light, in my /very/ limited experience, attempting to broach the issue with Paul supporters has been met with at best dismal and at worst outright irrational anger. In fact I've now been told a number of times that such quotations are falsified, that they've been planted by Paul's detractors. The implication seems to be they're suggesting this is the manifestatio…

There is a conspiracy against Paul. I'm not American and I've followed Paul since 2008. The media definitely conspires against him. Jon Stewart even called them out on it. Google it.

Yes the media definitely conspires against him. Just not for reasons you might think, his F#@king nuts !

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#267

Post by BarkMore »

eftpotrm wrote: post #227
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…

Personally, I believe that Ron Paul will do what he says and that's a problem. I've read the articles, I've looked into things as much as I can and I very firmly disagree with him on his general monetary policies. The Federal Reserve being wound up and the USA returned to a Gold standard would not be A Good Thing for the USA or the world (me not being American); there's a reason why countries don't do that any more a…

Ron Paul wants to allow gold and silver to be used as legal tender. This is not the same thing as returning to the gold standard.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#268

Post by wycats »

smokeyj wrote: post #264
wycats wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I've just about had enough of libertarians and conservatives claiming such moral superiority of their economic world view that they perceive any disagreement with it as obviously wrong. I was replying to a parent comment that claimed that ARPA wasn't particularly important in the greater scheme of things ("If it wasn't ARPA, it would have been something else"). I replied by pointing out that even when ARPA…

I demand half your salary. My economic theory permits me to take this from you. Don't worry, it's supported by academia and Paul Krugman, therefore you love it. Following your logic, this represents virtue. Yes, there's a wide array of economic theories. It's the equivalent of religion. Everyone has their own belief. Libertarians believe people shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. Why are you against choice? Sho…

I accept this argument, but please don't claim that it has anything to do with a misunderstanding of economic theory.

Thank you.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#269

Post by losvedir »

toyg wrote: post #114
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?

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 socia…

> There is no threat of violence, workers' rights are a civil matter, penalties are financial.

And if you don't pay the financial penalties? You go to jail... Ultimately, the government derives all its power from having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#270

Post by smokeyj »

wycats wrote: post #268
smokeyj wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I demand half your salary. My economic theory permits me to take this from you. Don't worry, it's supported by academia and Paul Krugman, therefore you love it. Following your logic, this represents virtue. Yes, there's a wide array of economic theories. It's the equivalent of religion. Everyone has their own belief. Libertarians believe people shouldn't impose their beliefs on others. Why are you against choice? Sho…

I accept this argument, but please don't claim that it has anything to do with a misunderstanding of economic theory. Thank you.

Fair enough, my brain is tired :)
Post reply on HN