On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:42 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:32 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:24 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 05:45 Wegandi wrote:
On December 11 2011 10:05 Derez wrote: [quote]
Gingrich has a 34% unfavorability rate amongst republicans (see nate silver's latest blogs on 538) which isn't low by any definition, loses flat out in the independant range (see PPP polling) and doesn't stand a chance with registered democrats. These numbers actually go up once people know more about him, and most analists expect his unfavorables to go way over 50 when it comes to a general.
None of the republican candidates that are running are currently acceptable to both the rank-and-file and the establishment, which is a recipe for total disaster. Every single frontrunner in the GOP primary is unelectable on a national basis, the only guy with somewhat of a shot is Romney.
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
Watch this :
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:42 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:32 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:24 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 05:45 Wegandi wrote: [quote]
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
Sometimes he says stupid stuff. I never refuted that but, if you are so blinded by the fact that he among few others voted against the NDAA(recently) to protect our freedoms. I guess some people are just blinded by party association. Here's the facts on the vote: 93-7 on the senate and 406-17 from the house. Now are you seeing straight?
So everybody in Washington is equally insane, no exceptions.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:42 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:32 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:24 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 05:45 Wegandi wrote: [quote]
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
Sometimes he says stupid stuff. I never refuted that but, if you are so blinded by the fact that he among few others voted against the NDAA(recently) to protect our freedoms. I guess some people are just blinded by party association. Here's the facts on the vote: 93-7 on the senate and 406-17 from the house. Now are you seeing straight?
I never brought up the vote against the NDAA, you did. I never said that I disagreed with every single position Rand Paul has ever taken. In my first post I was replying to StealthBlue who wrote that Rand Paul "usually calls BS when he sees it", and I pointed out that he obviously does not call BS when he's the one spouting it - something which happens quite often.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:42 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:32 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:24 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 05:45 Wegandi wrote: [quote]
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Why can't more posts be as eloquent and well-thought out as this one? It is so concise and to the point that even the most thick-headed left-winger will stop to think, then avoid addressing the question with utter fail written across his face.
A better description of rights would be something that is innate and natural to oneself. I can walk therefore I have the right to walk. I can speak so I have the right to free speech. None of these things impose on someone else's rights. Unless I am a trained medical professional, I cannot diagnose and treat myself. I have no right to oblige someone else to attend to my needs, unless he is my slave.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:42 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:32 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:24 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 05:45 Wegandi wrote: [quote]
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
So you agree that the right to legal counsel, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, is slavery and that compulsory jury duty is slavery. Good to know how warped your view of slavery is.
On December 12 2011 10:38 scaban84 wrote: Why can't more posts be as eloquent and well-thought out as this one? It is so concise and to the point that even the most thick-headed left-winger will stop to think, then avoid addressing the question with utter fail written across his face.
A better description of rights would be something that is innate and natural to oneself. I can walk therefore I have the right to walk. I can speak so I have the right to free speech. None of these things impose on someone else's rights. Unless I am a trained medical professional, I cannot diagnose and treat myself. I have no right to oblige someone else to attend to my needs, unless he is my slave.
Yet, in the United States of America, you are not born able to argue your legal actions before your peers and state officials. The founders and philosophers of the time (and to this day) agree that the ability to defend yourself in court is essential in protecting your own rights. Therefor, you are granted the right to a professional who can, but is not forced to, represent your actions in court. In this way, nobody of higher standing can have absolute power over your pursuit of life, liberty, and property within the context of the law. Lawyers do not become slaves over this right, nor are people willing to pay a premium denied the right to "better" legal representation.
In the same way, a right to adequate medical advice and services would not equate to slavery. In the same way that we cannot simply approach any lawyer and demand him/her to represent us in court, it would be impossible to demand out of a medical professional. The right to medical services would merely ensure the right to life, liberty, and property was fully experienced under the law. We might not agree on whether that right is necessary to guarantee life, liberty, and property, but to equate it to slavery is a gross inaccuracy and paints your argument as grounded completely in fantasy.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:42 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:32 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:24 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:14 aksfjh wrote:
On December 12 2011 05:45 Wegandi wrote: [quote]
Not sure if you consider Ron Paul a frontrunner or not, but he has the best electability in the General of any the GOP candidates. He consistently either beats, or ties Obama on a whole, and he trounces Obama with Independents (usually double digit leads), and he takes away a large chunk of Democratic votes from him (because Obama is not anti-war, pro-civil liberties). GOP voters that are not Ron Paul supporters will ultimately support the nominee because they dislike Obama more than they would someone like Paul, Romney, or Gingrich.
Other than that, I would love to see Paul debate Obama. It would be so one-sided in Paul's favor. You will hear the Democratic President champion war, Patriot Act, violations of civil liberties, assassinations of American citizens, his buddies in the banking Industry / Federal Reserve, among a long list of usually Republican associated positions. Whereas, Paul, like Goldwater and Taft before that, will be the voice for liberty, peace, and civil society. I can't imagine many Democrats getting excited to vote for the guy who wants to bomb more countries, invade more countries, put sanctions and embargos on more countries, continuation of the Drug War, is for the TSA grabbing your nads, and is for a crackdown on basic civil liberties such as privacy, right to remain silent, innocent until found guilty by a jury of your peers (whom have Jury Nullification powers).
Reagan won in a landslide because he took a lot of Democrat votes and he inspired a different view than what the Democratic nominee espoused. Ron will have the same landslide victory in the General for the same reasons -- but this time we can elect someone will actual principles, values, consistency, and honesty.
If Paul wins Iowa, you will be looking at the 45th President of the US (and if you happen to believe in the Mayan 2012 angle, well...there will definitely be a large paradigm shift in society and the world if someone like Paul wins. We haven't had a libertarian President in nearly 100 years, so the impact will be significant).
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
On December 12 2011 09:39 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: propaganda campaigns? What BS is this son? Where's your citation and fact sheets. I want proof of this, otherwise your just another talking head like the mainstream media.
...you want Fact sheets and citations for why you need to apply critical thinking to politics? You want proof that political campaigns are about talking points and propaganda? Are you serious?
The entire point of a political campaign is to portray yourself in the most appealing light possible. If people can't stop to actually think about what's being said, then there's no point in democracy.
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
Where does the State get its money? The State is a giant farm, and we are its subjugates. If I say no to taxation, I am either kidnapped and put in a cage called jail, or, if I resist the State from taking my property, I am killed. How am I not a slave to the State? I have no choice whether to give my property to the State or not. The State is the antithesis of liberty, and therefore by definition I am a slave to the State. Sure, it says I have a few 'rights' inside their farm, but I am not free. I am still a slave. If the plantation owner gave to his slaves a bit more rights than we enjoy today, he would still be a slave, because he is not a freeman or woman. I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
or
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
or perhaps
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
On December 12 2011 09:39 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: propaganda campaigns? What BS is this son? Where's your citation and fact sheets. I want proof of this, otherwise your just another talking head like the mainstream media.
...you want Fact sheets and citations for why you need to apply critical thinking to politics? You want proof that political campaigns are about talking points and propaganda? Are you serious?
The entire point of a political campaign is to portray yourself in the most appealing light possible. If people can't stop to actually think about what's being said, then there's no point in democracy.
I'm not sure these people will understand. They do all their research on the Daily Paul and libertarian Youtube videos. We live in such an age where your political ideas and leanings can be thoroughly reinforced by a staggering amount of content. Those who do not "vary their portfolio" beyond affirming media simply won't believe there is a veil covering their eyes as well.
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
This is hilarious. We have free (pretty much) healthcare in Sweden, and this means that the goverment pays the costs. It does not mean that we can walk into a hospital and demand a full body scan for free. The doctors get paid, it's just that the government pays it, or well, we pay it through taxes.
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
This is hilarious. We have free (pretty much) healthcare in Sweden, and this means that the goverment pays the costs. It does not mean that we can walk into a hospital and demand a full body scan for free. The doctors get paid, it's just that the government pays it, or well, we pay it through taxes.
On the contrary, the Government does not pay. You pay. Your fellow taxpayers pay, regardless if they consent to this or not. Whether they use the service or not. They have no choice, but the ballot box, and that is guarded by the majority whom does what it wants to the minority. If the minority withholds their own property from the prying hands of the State, they are jailed or killed. That is not a slave? What choice is there?
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
Where does the State get its money? The State is a giant farm, and we are its subjugates. If I say no to taxation, I am either kidnapped and put in a cage called jail, or, if I resist the State from taking my property, I am killed. How am I not a slave to the State? I have no choice whether to give my property to the State or not. The State is the antithesis of liberty, and therefore by definition I am a slave to the State. Sure, it says I have a few 'rights' inside their farm, but I am not free. I am still a slave. If the plantation owner gave to his slaves a bit more rights than we enjoy today, he would still be a slave, because he is not a freeman or woman. I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Without the state you have no rights that can not be taken away at a whim by anyone who would hold more power then you do.
On December 12 2011 09:39 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: propaganda campaigns? What BS is this son? Where's your citation and fact sheets. I want proof of this, otherwise your just another talking head like the mainstream media.
...you want Fact sheets and citations for why you need to apply critical thinking to politics? You want proof that political campaigns are about talking points and propaganda? Are you serious?
The entire point of a political campaign is to portray yourself in the most appealing light possible. If people can't stop to actually think about what's being said, then there's no point in democracy.
I have proof that Paul isn't bought off like the rest of these politicians. I can't say the same about the rest of them like Obama...
@aksfjh You still fail to see that your hero is bought off too. I think you need to re-evaluate who isn't bought off and who is fighting for the people. The root of our economic problems does lead to the FED. When you fail to see this then we're all in trouble.
This is with a chunk of the GOP in the 'undecided' camp, which means, as we all know they'll vote for Paul if the nominee when it comes down to it so, it's safe to say you can add a few more percent to Paul's numbers. He is by far the most electable GOP candidate in the General.
Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
On December 12 2011 06:24 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Actually he has polled before above your messiah. Ron Paul pulls in more Democrats and Independents towards him because of his anti-unconstitutional wars. His foreign policy is what makes Neo-Cons nervous and most republicans have been taken over by them.
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
Where does the State get its money? The State is a giant farm, and we are its subjugates. If I say no to taxation, I am either kidnapped and put in a cage called jail, or, if I resist the State from taking my property, I am killed. How am I not a slave to the State? I have no choice whether to give my property to the State or not. The State is the antithesis of liberty, and therefore by definition I am a slave to the State. Sure, it says I have a few 'rights' inside their farm, but I am not free. I am still a slave. If the plantation owner gave to his slaves a bit more rights than we enjoy today, he would still be a slave, because he is not a freeman or woman. I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
I'm glad we established that your argument regarding the right to healthcare amounting to slavery had actually absolutely nothing to do with the right to healthcare and everything to do with how you perceive the relationship between people and the state they live in, regardless of the right we're talking about.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:42 Wegandi wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:32 aksfjh wrote: [quote] Oh, you're talking about individual states. If that's the case, then yes, Paul does alright in some cases and even wins a few!
[quote]
Since when have I stated that I think Obama is a great candidate? I'm sorry that I don't think Paul is a good or likely candidate for President. It doesn't really matter what stances he takes that appease Democrats or independents if he can't even pull his own party's support.
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
Where does the State get its money? The State is a giant farm, and we are its subjugates. If I say no to taxation, I am either kidnapped and put in a cage called jail, or, if I resist the State from taking my property, I am killed. How am I not a slave to the State? I have no choice whether to give my property to the State or not. The State is the antithesis of liberty, and therefore by definition I am a slave to the State. Sure, it says I have a few 'rights' inside their farm, but I am not free. I am still a slave. If the plantation owner gave to his slaves a bit more rights than we enjoy today, he would still be a slave, because he is not a freeman or woman. I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
or
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
or perhaps
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Without the state you have no rights that can not be taken away at a whim by anyone who would hold more power then you do.
Not true. Even if it was, you are saying the State is my owner because he is more powerful than I am, and therefore dictates to me what acceptable behavior parameters I can have. You have just agreed with me that I am a slave to the State who is the master and owner of all of my property and self. He can tell me what I can do and can't do, how much property I can or can't own, and what I can voice and not voice. Rights are natural, unalienable, and as self-evident as man acts. No one has the authority to take from me my natural liberties and rights. Sure, they may do so at the barrel of a gun, but it is neither acceptable, or moral to do so. Just as a robber takes my property without my consent, the State does, but neither act makes it right, acceptable, or moral.
I still hold you have yet to prove your premise. I further hold that the State is merely an artificial construct which can at any time be torn down and replaced as Etienne La Boetie posited in the 16th Century:
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.
“It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On December 12 2011 06:42 Wegandi wrote: [quote]
You do realize that the GOP rank and file is going to support anyone over Obama, right? The establishment rallied behind Rand when he won the nomination, and they'll either do the same with Ron, or be silent -- in either case we still trounce Obama because he is that disliked in the GOP, his own base, etc. Democrats aren't going to vote for Romney, Perry, or Gingrich (LOL), but they will for Paul. Same with Independents. In almost all of the polls conducted Paul destroys absolutely pummels Obama with independents, and many times with double digit leads. No other GOP candidate can say the same thing. The majority of the American people agree with Paul on foreign policy, monetary policy, and issues of liberty (anti-Patriot Act, anti-TSA, anti-DHS, etc.). People just have to get beyond the talking points of the MSM establishment cronies (Ailes, Immelt, etc.). Why people have so much belief in News Corp., GE, Comcast, etc. when they get most of their money from the taxpayers (plus you know, having a healthy monopoly from the Government on TV access), to give them fair and factual reporting.
No one in the Paul camp is worried about the General, because we know that winning the GOP nomination is the difficult part. We know that the GOP voters will be anyone-but-Obama in the General. We know we have Independents and dis-enfranchised Democrats on lock. Something no other GOP candidate can say. We will destroy Obama in the General. The primary is our challenge.
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
Where does the State get its money? The State is a giant farm, and we are its subjugates. If I say no to taxation, I am either kidnapped and put in a cage called jail, or, if I resist the State from taking my property, I am killed. How am I not a slave to the State? I have no choice whether to give my property to the State or not. The State is the antithesis of liberty, and therefore by definition I am a slave to the State. Sure, it says I have a few 'rights' inside their farm, but I am not free. I am still a slave. If the plantation owner gave to his slaves a bit more rights than we enjoy today, he would still be a slave, because he is not a freeman or woman. I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
or
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
or perhaps
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Without the state you have no rights that can not be taken away at a whim by anyone who would hold more power then you do.
Not true. Even if it was, you are saying the State is my owner because he is more powerful than I am, and therefore dictates to me what acceptable behavior parameters I can have. You have just agreed with me that I am a slave to the State who is the master and owner of all of my property and self. He can tell me what I can do and can't do, how much property I can or can't own, and what I can voice and not voice. Rights are natural, unalienable, and as self-evident as man acts. No one has the authority to take from me my natural liberties and rights. Sure, they may do so at the barrel of a gun, but it is neither acceptable, or moral to do so. Just as a robber takes my property without my consent, the State does, but neither act makes it right, acceptable, or moral.
I still hold you have yet to prove your premise. I further hold that the State is merely an artificial construct which can at any time be torn down and replaced as Etienne La Boetie posited in the 16th Century:
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.
“It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”
I say the states are a necessary evil that arise out mans natural tendency to band together to protect themselves from outside threat. These bands of people create a system of governance which essentially creates a small scale state where individual liberties are sometimes imposed on for what is felt like the greater good. This happens on the scale of tribal groups to city-states to full scale nations.
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
This is hilarious. We have free (pretty much) healthcare in Sweden, and this means that the goverment pays the costs. It does not mean that we can walk into a hospital and demand a full body scan for free. The doctors get paid, it's just that the government pays it, or well, we pay it through taxes.
On the contrary, the Government does not pay. You pay. Your fellow taxpayers pay, regardless if they consent to this or not. Whether they use the service or not. They have no choice, but the ballot box, and that is guarded by the majority whom does what it wants to the minority. If the minority withholds their own property from the prying hands of the State, they are jailed or killed. That is not a slave? What choice is there?
And yet, by your line of thought, slaves without even a ballot box in the economic arena. We provide service and labor to some minority to ensure our own survival. We are subjected to constant scrutiny to determine if we deserve the right to live by those few who first owned, and will continue to own. There is no escape, because every day you earn, less than a day is paid, while the rest goes back to those who own. If you strike out against this system, you face starvation and exile, as those who own mock you and bleed you dry. That is slavery.
I should note that I don't really believe either is the case. The life we live, conceding to public and private service, is the price of progress. The price we pay today is repaid in time, to us and our offspring.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: [quote]
Establishment Republicans were against Rand Paul but when he won and would be facing the Democrat they were forced to wipe the egg off their faces and eat crow. Mitch McConnell did not like Rand Paul from the get go but was forced to side with him because of his success. And depending on who you ask still doesn't like him as Ran Paul usually calls BS when he sees it, Democrat and Republican.
Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
Where does the State get its money? The State is a giant farm, and we are its subjugates. If I say no to taxation, I am either kidnapped and put in a cage called jail, or, if I resist the State from taking my property, I am killed. How am I not a slave to the State? I have no choice whether to give my property to the State or not. The State is the antithesis of liberty, and therefore by definition I am a slave to the State. Sure, it says I have a few 'rights' inside their farm, but I am not free. I am still a slave. If the plantation owner gave to his slaves a bit more rights than we enjoy today, he would still be a slave, because he is not a freeman or woman. I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
or
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
or perhaps
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Without the state you have no rights that can not be taken away at a whim by anyone who would hold more power then you do.
Not true. Even if it was, you are saying the State is my owner because he is more powerful than I am, and therefore dictates to me what acceptable behavior parameters I can have. You have just agreed with me that I am a slave to the State who is the master and owner of all of my property and self. He can tell me what I can do and can't do, how much property I can or can't own, and what I can voice and not voice. Rights are natural, unalienable, and as self-evident as man acts. No one has the authority to take from me my natural liberties and rights. Sure, they may do so at the barrel of a gun, but it is neither acceptable, or moral to do so. Just as a robber takes my property without my consent, the State does, but neither act makes it right, acceptable, or moral.
I still hold you have yet to prove your premise. I further hold that the State is merely an artificial construct which can at any time be torn down and replaced as Etienne La Boetie posited in the 16th Century:
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.
“It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”
I say the states are a necessary evil that arise out mans natural tendency to band together to protect themselves from outside threat. These bands of people create a system of governance which essentially creates a small scale state where individual liberties are sometimes imposed on for what is felt like the greater good. This happens on the scale of tribal groups to city-states to full scale nations.
Well, Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock disagree about the genesis of the State. I tend to agree with them.
Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the state:
"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors." "No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)
History backs this up, as does as any simple thought process.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote: [quote] Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
Where does the State get its money? The State is a giant farm, and we are its subjugates. If I say no to taxation, I am either kidnapped and put in a cage called jail, or, if I resist the State from taking my property, I am killed. How am I not a slave to the State? I have no choice whether to give my property to the State or not. The State is the antithesis of liberty, and therefore by definition I am a slave to the State. Sure, it says I have a few 'rights' inside their farm, but I am not free. I am still a slave. If the plantation owner gave to his slaves a bit more rights than we enjoy today, he would still be a slave, because he is not a freeman or woman. I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
or
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
or perhaps
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Without the state you have no rights that can not be taken away at a whim by anyone who would hold more power then you do.
Not true. Even if it was, you are saying the State is my owner because he is more powerful than I am, and therefore dictates to me what acceptable behavior parameters I can have. You have just agreed with me that I am a slave to the State who is the master and owner of all of my property and self. He can tell me what I can do and can't do, how much property I can or can't own, and what I can voice and not voice. Rights are natural, unalienable, and as self-evident as man acts. No one has the authority to take from me my natural liberties and rights. Sure, they may do so at the barrel of a gun, but it is neither acceptable, or moral to do so. Just as a robber takes my property without my consent, the State does, but neither act makes it right, acceptable, or moral.
I still hold you have yet to prove your premise. I further hold that the State is merely an artificial construct which can at any time be torn down and replaced as Etienne La Boetie posited in the 16th Century:
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.
“It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”
I say the states are a necessary evil that arise out mans natural tendency to band together to protect themselves from outside threat. These bands of people create a system of governance which essentially creates a small scale state where individual liberties are sometimes imposed on for what is felt like the greater good. This happens on the scale of tribal groups to city-states to full scale nations.
Well, Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock disagree about the genesis of the State. I tend to agree with them.
Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the state:
"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors." "No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)
History backs this up, as does as any simple thought process.
So, you're an anarchist. What are you doing in this topic?
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 12 2011 07:36 kwizach wrote: [quote] Yeah, except when he's the one spouting BS.
Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
Where does the State get its money? The State is a giant farm, and we are its subjugates. If I say no to taxation, I am either kidnapped and put in a cage called jail, or, if I resist the State from taking my property, I am killed. How am I not a slave to the State? I have no choice whether to give my property to the State or not. The State is the antithesis of liberty, and therefore by definition I am a slave to the State. Sure, it says I have a few 'rights' inside their farm, but I am not free. I am still a slave. If the plantation owner gave to his slaves a bit more rights than we enjoy today, he would still be a slave, because he is not a freeman or woman. I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
or
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
or perhaps
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Without the state you have no rights that can not be taken away at a whim by anyone who would hold more power then you do.
Not true. Even if it was, you are saying the State is my owner because he is more powerful than I am, and therefore dictates to me what acceptable behavior parameters I can have. You have just agreed with me that I am a slave to the State who is the master and owner of all of my property and self. He can tell me what I can do and can't do, how much property I can or can't own, and what I can voice and not voice. Rights are natural, unalienable, and as self-evident as man acts. No one has the authority to take from me my natural liberties and rights. Sure, they may do so at the barrel of a gun, but it is neither acceptable, or moral to do so. Just as a robber takes my property without my consent, the State does, but neither act makes it right, acceptable, or moral.
I still hold you have yet to prove your premise. I further hold that the State is merely an artificial construct which can at any time be torn down and replaced as Etienne La Boetie posited in the 16th Century:
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.
“It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”
I say the states are a necessary evil that arise out mans natural tendency to band together to protect themselves from outside threat. These bands of people create a system of governance which essentially creates a small scale state where individual liberties are sometimes imposed on for what is felt like the greater good. This happens on the scale of tribal groups to city-states to full scale nations.
Well, Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock disagree about the genesis of the State. I tend to agree with them.
Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the state:
"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors." "No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)
History backs this up, as does as any simple thought process.
To say that a state is created when one group conquers another is to ignore the fact that the group is operating as a state before it's conquers anyone. At some point, people have to come together for the mutual good or towns and cities would have never developed in the first place. Of course, I feel you may argue that towns were only formed as a result of the conquest of others and as a means to keep them contained.
On December 12 2011 09:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: [quote] Yeah, the same guy who defended our freedoms from the National Defense Authorization Act that takes away our 4th amendment rights. youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=relmfu Also, he use to help people for free as a doctor... youtube.com/watch?v=6Dzsfn7m63E So, I have no idea what BS you are talking about.
In this video, Rand Paul declares with a straight face that saying that people have a right to healthcare is equivalent to "believing in slavery". I'm pretty sure that qualifies as BS. He purposively paints a completely deceptive image of a right to healthcare in order to argue that doctors would then be slaves at the disposition of patients. Last time I checked there is something in the Bill of Rights called the "right to counsel", do you consider lawyers to be slaves or will you admit he was spouting BS?
If someone has a right to healthcare, therefore another individual has to provide it no matter if they object or not. Therefore, any right derived from the actions of another individual constitutes slavery. If everyone said no to provide to you this right, how is it a right? And if it is a right, then force is compelled to make these non-compliant individuals to provide you with it. If every material good is a right everyone is compelled to satiate this right with their labor, time, and property. How again is this not slavery? No one has the obligation to provide another individual with any such good or service. You only have rights to life, liberty, and property (self-ownership and the just products derived from such ownership).
Now, there is a difference between chattel slavery and the slavery of say any Socialist State. One is so-called public, and one is private in nature. However, there really is no meaningful difference to those individuals on the other end. Why is healthcare a right, and not a TV? Why not transportation? Why not the internet? On what basis do you derive these 'rights' to goods and services? Are you to have a right of food and shelter? Who is to provide to you this right which you by nature you are endowed? Having a right to anothers labor, property, and time is slavery any way you dice it.
Besides the fact that like Rand Paul you seem to have some difficulty understanding the definition of "slavery", you are with your argument guilty of a fallacy/strawman: the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this).
Where does the State get its money? The State is a giant farm, and we are its subjugates. If I say no to taxation, I am either kidnapped and put in a cage called jail, or, if I resist the State from taking my property, I am killed. How am I not a slave to the State? I have no choice whether to give my property to the State or not. The State is the antithesis of liberty, and therefore by definition I am a slave to the State. Sure, it says I have a few 'rights' inside their farm, but I am not free. I am still a slave. If the plantation owner gave to his slaves a bit more rights than we enjoy today, he would still be a slave, because he is not a freeman or woman. I think Lysander Spooner put it best:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
or
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
or perhaps
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Without the state you have no rights that can not be taken away at a whim by anyone who would hold more power then you do.
Not true. Even if it was, you are saying the State is my owner because he is more powerful than I am, and therefore dictates to me what acceptable behavior parameters I can have. You have just agreed with me that I am a slave to the State who is the master and owner of all of my property and self. He can tell me what I can do and can't do, how much property I can or can't own, and what I can voice and not voice. Rights are natural, unalienable, and as self-evident as man acts. No one has the authority to take from me my natural liberties and rights. Sure, they may do so at the barrel of a gun, but it is neither acceptable, or moral to do so. Just as a robber takes my property without my consent, the State does, but neither act makes it right, acceptable, or moral.
I still hold you have yet to prove your premise. I further hold that the State is merely an artificial construct which can at any time be torn down and replaced as Etienne La Boetie posited in the 16th Century:
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.
“It is incredible how as soon as a people become subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and willingly that one is led to say that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”
I say the states are a necessary evil that arise out mans natural tendency to band together to protect themselves from outside threat. These bands of people create a system of governance which essentially creates a small scale state where individual liberties are sometimes imposed on for what is felt like the greater good. This happens on the scale of tribal groups to city-states to full scale nations.
Well, Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock disagree about the genesis of the State. I tend to agree with them.
Unlike Locke and others, Oppenheimer rejected the idea of the "social contract" and contributed to the "conquest theory" of the state:
"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors." "No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15)
History backs this up, as does as any simple thought process.
So, you're an anarchist. What are you doing in this topic?
You didn't know? I've seen this guy around before and know his MO. Sorry to derail the topic, but I was feeling a little frisky. I guess I'll leave it be.
EPT![[image loading]](http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/388733_10150437602506686_6233046685_8740098_1537721022_n.jpg)
