Ron Paul speaks against SOPA • Hacker News Board

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#271

Post by andylei » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 10:47 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #207

zavulon wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with Ron Paul on economy more than any other candidate, but he's racist, anti-semite and a homophobe, or at least pretended to be one in order to get rich, which I find highly unlikely[1][2]. In my opinion, no matter how right on economy he is, we can't have someone like that as a president. [1] http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-5... [2] http://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter Edit: sorry…

he's racist, anti-semite and a homophobe I don't believe that's true. But even if he were, the elegance of his philosophy is such that it renders him powerless to do anything about it. He wants to take power away from the presidency and the rest of the federal government. He's not looking for power to oppress somebody he doesn't like (or favor the corporations he does like). He wants to make it so that it's impossibl…

unless you're a state politician. then he doesn't care what you do.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#272

Post by jules » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 10:49 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #182

adabsurdo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But none of that really matters. I would bet that you are neither a woman, black, jewish, poor, or gay. So the fact, for example, that ron paul is a huge racist is something that you can discount at no cost to you. edit : wow, i see the ron paul brigade is out in force, as usual. thank you all! never been so proud of being downvoted.

Ron Paul is not a racist, and in fact sees racism as the lowest form of collectivism.

Perhaps, but he did have a company that earned a lot of money from publishing newsletters containing racist and anti-gay passages under his name (e.g. The Ron Paul Survival Report):

> The newsletters, attributed to Paul, made statements such as "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be", and referring to Martin Luther King as a "pro-communist philanderer" and to Martin Luther King Day as "hate Whitey day."[72][73] An issue from 1992 refers to carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."[74] In an article title "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that " "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."[73]

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,...

Of course, he distances himself from these newsletters now. Would somebody who is truly not racist and not anti-gay have such words published in their name by accident?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#273

Post by jbooth » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 10:52 PM UTC

thebigshane wrote: post #265

jbooth wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think most readings of the commerce clause prohibit taxes on crossing state lines, it was just an example of game theory gone awry.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#274

Post by sixspeed » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 10:52 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #215

x3c wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to be rude or condescending here, but if you read my reply in its entirety, you'll find the answer to your question.

The connection you aren't making is that politics leads to flame wars, on the internet. "Politics" regards deeply held beliefs people hold about how the world ought to be run. Also, the same discussions tend to be run over and over on ad infinitum. Hacker news doesn't need it. It does well by having a tight focus.

Your point is well taken. But tech discussions can also lead to flame wars and HN seems to handle those rather well. I for one am interested in what this community thinks about many subjects. Including politics.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#275

Post by aamar » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 10:53 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #169

aamar wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

he's not in a position to affect policy in any significant way I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy. As president, on the other hand, the job is to find ways to implement the policies that the Congress has defined. We get all excited about Presidential election, but at l…

> I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy.

We're evaluating individuals here, not branches of government.

The House is probably the most most important single body in the government, and if we are unhappy with the laws, we should indeed generally hold that body as the first layer of accountability.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of 435 members of the House. He does not chair a committee and has chaired one subcommittee for one year. He heads a congressional caucus--that's good--but it has ~12 members and virtually no record of legislation or other action. Separately he has gotten ~1 bill passed in his career and a very small number of notable amendments. He has not been a decisive vote on virtually any issue.

Many individuals have policy powers vastly exceeding this, including not only (obviously) the president, AG, Supreme Court, and perhaps 100+ Congressional leaders, but also (I would aver) the Cabinet, Federal Reserve Board, OLC, JCs, and dozens or hundreds of others.

I think it's very common for people to treat all members of Congress as if they're the same, but Ron Paul is not John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi.

Ron Pauls's power comes from his writings and speeches on various principles of governmental power and the economy. If he's been remiss on that exact front--hired famous cranks like Lew Rockwell to ghost for him and then failed to review his work--then he's mismanaged his power. I'm not saying that he's a criminal in the sense that, say, Warren Harding is a criminal, but it's absolutely relevant to his candidacy.

edit: Ron Paul does chair one subcommittee as of Jan 2011--misstated that.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#276

Post by jules » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 10:53 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #247

llambda wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 homose…

To claim that Ron Paul endorses murdering homosexuals because some random religious guy who does, endorsed his campaign is a lie. That's like saying Ron Paul is pro-choice because I'm pro-choice.

You're putting words in his mouth. What llambda actually said is:

1. There is a religious guy who endorses murdering homosexuals.

2. This guy endorses Ron Paul's campaign.

3. Ron Paul's campaign is touting that endorsement.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#277

Post by andylei » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 10:54 PM UTC

smokeyj wrote: post #256

wycats wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're confusing principle with ideology. We're discussing central planning verses distributed planning. I'm for a distributed economy that resembles a p2p network. I support p2p networks because it's robust and lacks a single point of failure -- and it's difficult to corrupt. You're saying, p2p networks will never work, because it's too ideological. Ok, cool story bro. But why is a centralized protocol better? That'…

the real world is more complicated than you think it is. it's not a binary choice between p2p networks and command and control economies.

bring your analogy back to the real world. the fact that government funds research does not preclude additional research. maybe the internet would have been invented without government funding, maybe not; i don't know, and neither do you.

the point is that it's good to fund research because it can progress research. your analogy makes no sense, because "p2p" and "centralized protocol" are not mutually exclusive. in the current world, the government funds research, but (in general), it doesn't prevent anyone from funding research, so if you want to fund your own research, you can.

there's no hybrid protocol, but the real world is a hybrid system. some research is privately funded, some is publicly funded. i think its good that way

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#278

Post by Duff » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 11:02 PM UTC

shill wrote: post #121

Duff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says things that politicians don't typically say. The average American politician chants "create jobs" when he orders breakfast. Paul says things that sound insightful and refreshing on the surface, when heard in terms of a soundbite. Most of his fans don't dig much deeper. He would be a horrific president, but he's having a positive impact. By speaking his mind and talking about things that don't make it out of t…

I agree with most of what you say, but I think your idea of the word 'horrific' is something like running out of milk halfway through filling your bowl of Cheerios. The media collaborating with the military-industrial-complex to drum up a war on phony pretenses that resulted in the slaughter of more than 100,000 Iraqis is horrific. Strip searching citizens before they can get from point A to point B is horrific. The…

I agree with everything other than your first sentence 100%.

A Ron Paul Presidency probably wouldn't be a member of the war-of-the-month club that we've been members of since 2001. But I think he would rapidly discover the limits of Presidential power. A Paul presidency in the current environment would almost certainly lead to economic ruin as markets panic and that military-industrial complex (which employs millions of people) gets turned down. IMO, a Ron Paul administration would be like a second Andrew Johnson administration.

When 93% of Senators (the house of Congress that is supposed to squash bad ideas) are willing to attack fundamental principles of American government, a new president isn't going to have the influence to "save" us.

What Paul CAN do is inspire people. We need people in congress, state houses and county governments who can represent the people, and not just the various special interests that pull the strings.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#279

Post by toyg » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 11:08 PM UTC

losvedir wrote: post #269

toyg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you don't pay the financial penalties your assets are seized and you go bankrupt... or not even that, in most cases, thanks to the concept of LLC.

People don't go to jail for breaking workers' rights like holiday entitlements, let's not make it more dramatic than it is.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#280

Post by tptacek » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 11:09 PM UTC

sixspeed wrote: post #274

davidw wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The connection you aren't making is that politics leads to flame wars, on the internet. "Politics" regards deeply held beliefs people hold about how the world ought to be run. Also, the same discussions tend to be run over and over on ad infinitum. Hacker news doesn't need it. It does well by having a tight focus.

Your point is well taken. But tech discussions can also lead to flame wars and HN seems to handle those rather well. I for one am interested in what this community thinks about many subjects. Including politics.

The site has guidelines. Please reread them.