Ron Paul speaks against SOPA • Hacker News Board

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#291

Post by tempire » Sat, Dec 31, 2011, 8:11 AM UTC

atarian wrote: post #105

megablast wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ron Paul has some great ideas, he was against iraq war, iran invasion and more. But he hates gay rights and is very strong on Religion. He want laws against burning the flag, against abortion, and more. He has extreme views, that you either hate or love.

What irks me is that this is how a lot of people I've met approach presidential candidates. They gloss over important things like how Ron Paul is planning to implement $1 trillion in budget cuts, a reduction in the cabinet, etc and go straight for his personal beliefs which he doesn't allow to dictate his political career. He even voted against the ban on gay marriages.

True enough. This is the pattern set by other candidates as long as I've been paying attention. It's why people don't get Paul, because he's not trying to push his views on other people by mandating them into law. As such, he's likely the only non-bigoted GOP candidate, because he's not out to force his opinions on others.

You can't really blame people - it's just such a foreign concept, so it takes time to really sink in.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#292

Post by DiabloD3 » Sat, Dec 31, 2011, 11:32 AM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #100

DiabloD3 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the Representatives of the State of Louisiana at the time of Katrina lived in an area that was not directly hit by the hurricane. She had insurance that covered, flood, wind, and rain damage. The insurance company did not pay her a dime, even after she, and the rest of LA sued them. There is no free market when insurance companies can buy judges to get their way out of doing what they were paid to do.

Perhaps Ron Paul would do away with whatever mechanism allows the insurance companies to buy judges? (assuming what they are doing is legal).

At the time, he said he would support legislation to do this (I think he may have even put forth some, I can't find it though).

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#293

Post by DiabloD3 » Sat, Dec 31, 2011, 11:33 AM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #225

jiggy2011 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps Ron Paul would do away with whatever mechanism allows the insurance companies to buy judges? (assuming what they are doing is legal).

Insurance companies don't buy judges. This is really just nonsense. The thing is, judges work for the government, this means, no matter how illegal a law is, they will always take the government side of it. For example, the constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate insurance at the federal level, but judges will rule based on the assumption it does because they are government employees and wouldn…

Judges are elected in that area, and the insurance company paid for his re-election campaign. So, yes, judges CAN be bought, and it was legal too.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#294

Post by ericingram » Sat, Dec 31, 2011, 4:45 PM UTC

zavulon wrote: post #149

ericingram wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't agree with Ron Paul, it's because you've spent far less time studying the real implications and economic intricacies as he has. He's right on everything.

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…

That's a ridiculous position to take. He's not any of those things.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#295

Post by eftpotrm » Sat, Dec 31, 2011, 4:58 PM UTC

BarkMore wrote: post #267

eftpotrm wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK, sorry, my wording was loose there; nonetheless, as he is looking for gold and silver to be admissable as payment, I think there's three possible scenarios.

One, the market ignores this and everyone continues paying in the dollars the president thinks are just another means of exchange. Sounds risky to me; it's pretty much a public statement that the gvernment won't at all seek to defend the value of the dollar so I'm not sure why anyone would want to accept such a risky asset.

Two, each merchant has to manage things in multiple currencies in parallel, along with the tax offices having to do the same and keep track of relative values and when the payment came in to establish the correct rates of tax. Won't happen.

Three, the market sees an unsupported national currency with little or no base backing and no national reserve bank backing it up. That's pretty much a guaranteed recipe for hyperinflation and flight to assets (remember, the historic result of not having the Federal Reserve was high inflation - it's been tried). It won't be orderly; the price of gold will rise fast due to demand against a basket of currencies, let alone against the dollar that'll be collapsing even faster. The banks aren't set up to handle physical deposits of gold, the merchants aren't set up to handle transactions in them so we'd end up with multiple, incompatible, payment systems based off private gold-measured currencies. Meanwhile industrial use of gold becomes prohibitively expensive putting brakes on the economy, while the fixed money supply inherent in a commodity-based currency puts us deliberately back into the situation that crashed the markets in 07-08 - no-one can get any credit to work with, so the economy ground to a halt. That was able to be mitigated by quantitative easing temporarily creating new money and injecting it into the economy, but under a commodity-backed economy that becomes impossible. Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard if you want; I'm not alone in holding these views.

There's a reason why the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and why the US ended convertibility with gold in 1971. Ron Paul seems to appreciate the lessons of neither, and I don't wish to live through him reminding the world of them again. Which is why, reluctantly, I think even Michelle Bachman would be a better candidate than Ron Paul.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#296

Post by scarmig » Sat, Dec 31, 2011, 6:37 PM UTC

tempire wrote: post #290

scarmig wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still totally ignoring the point. Marriage can be made equitable. It can be done either via abolishing marriage licensing altogether, or via making marriage licenses equitable. Ron Paul believes it's better to keep marriage licensing discriminatory versus equalizing them. If this were a world where government entitlements were available only to white people, and Ron Paul took the position "I'm opposed to doing…

Marriage cannot be made equitable by the state so long as the definition of marriage differs from person to person. Ron Paul believes that marriage licensing should simply not be. If there are no licenses, there is no discrimination. Problem solved. It seems like you believe that everyone should know that gay marriage is ok, and that everyone should agree with your view on the matter, because it's clearly the right o…

Can you try to address my point instead of just repeating "freedom freedom freedom"?

I understand that Ron Paul believes that the ideal world is not to have government licensing of marriages at all. I get it, and might even agree with it. Okay?

What I've said is that Paul supports a discriminatory status quo over fixing the discriminatory status quo. This is true, and this makes him a supporter of homophobic discrimination, even if he has some theoretical plan that will never come to a vote that would be equitable. Remove your finger from the "auto downvote any critic of Paul" mode for a second and stop to understand this point: Ron Paul is supporting anti-gay discrimination.

Answer me this: suppose we lived in a world where black people were banned from going onto public roads. There were multiple votes to make it legal for black people to use public roads. Ron Paul voted against those attempts multiple times, saying "I'm not racist, but I believe that public roads shouldn't exist as they're an inappropriate use of public funds." So the status quo remains indefinitely, as there's no actual chance that public roads will be abolished altogether.

I argue that I get his position, but that it's still immoral to discriminate against black people, and so in the short term he should vote to make the situation equitable . And then you come along, and say, "your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it" and "attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry." That's narrow-minded and pigheaded, no?

Ron Paul's the bad guy here, even if he has some idealistic long-term view of the perfect solution that one of the victims of his votes might even agree with. You say "we can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are": well, you can get legally married, get benefits from my tax money, and get special rights from the government, while I can't. That's shitty, and Ron Paul prefers to posture for his ideology over actually considering the day-to-day suffering of regular people resulting from that shittiness.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#297

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Dec 31, 2011, 10:22 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #257

stcredzero wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a cheap rhetorical trick. "Sanity" is defined as what his favored candidate wants to do, no? It depends. If Ron Paul were to reverse his views on positions where individual rights and freedom are the foundation, do you think the original poster would still support Ron Paul? If your answer is no, then he's clearly not defining "Sanity = What favorite candidate wants." If the answer is no, then the original poster…

My above phrase was not quite correct: it's not about the candidate, per se, it's about labeling as 'sane' those policies that he agrees with. Presumably, he could have a great time trading 'insane' and other verbiage with the people who view the lack of universal health care in the US as 'insane', as one example, and no one would be the better off for the whole exchange. By the way, you, too, are insane for not agre…

By the way, you, too, are insane for not agreeing 100% with me:-)

It would be seem we agree on many points, but you've thought a little more about the meaning and implications of (un)civil discourse. At first glance, maybe one would feel compelled to label insane proposals as such. But the lack of a clear arbiter of what is sane and not sane is a bit problematic.

Everyday life has always involved a bit of insanity and unreality, yet somehow we all muddle through.

But what if a person's value system defines certain ideas as wrong, and unsupported adherence to those ideas as insane? Is it wrong in a society that supposedly values free speech to express this belief?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#298

Post by cheez » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 2:49 AM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #116

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?

Most Europeans also find the fringe libertarian argument that government collecting and distributing rent is morally wrong because of the use of "coercion" a little odd. There's no more or less coercion when the government (or private individuals) enforce particular rules essential to the function of the market system US property-rights libertarians hold so sacrosanct: namely property and contract enforcement. Both h…

There is a difference between using violence to protect my home and using violence to get myself a little more "me" time or literally more cash.

Most libertarians don't advocate for no government, they advocate for as little as possible to maintain order and preserve freedom.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#299

Post by cheez » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 2:51 AM UTC

shibboleth wrote: post #172

sp332 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. But the government just gets money from the people. Also, they get mandates from the people. So getting the government to tax you to pay for someone else's problem is exactly the same as paying for the problem yoursel…

Political scientist here. The United States has tried relying on charities in the past. Here's (partially) why it didn't work out: people are selective to the charities they donate to and charities are often selective to the people they choose to help (some charities target war veterans, some children, some minorities, some certain neighborhoods). This leave a large, noticeable gap of many people left ignored. It's n…

I'd like to hear your response to Milton Friedman's view on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJEP1BzSeMQ

It's not about not wanting to be taxed, not at all. It's about removing the incentives to tie profit to violence.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#300

Post by cheez » Sun, Jan 01, 2012, 2:54 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #279

losvedir wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Holiday entitlements, probably not. However, in each country where there are things like corporations, directors can go to jail for stuff like nonpayment.