As you may recall, about a week ago there was a CNBC hosted republican debate after which, like every other televised debate, there was an online poll on who the public believed the winner was.
A few moments after the poll went online, CNBC deleted the poll from their website and any trace of it. Why? Of the 7000 people who cast their ballots thus far, Ron Paul won 75 percent of the vote.
Ron Paul has been winning internet/Text messaging votes since the fox debate half a year ago. In case you have forgotten, here is Fox's attempt to downplay or explain away Paul's SMS poll win:
While Reuters places Paul at a meagre 3%, straw polls, online polls, political rallies and meetup groups would suggest that rather than the 2nd tier candidate which CNN or Fox News places him to be, Paul is a first tier candidate, and the only republican candidate whose support is mushrooming every week.
However, the television channels still pretend that this support does not exist and continue living in a Giuliani/Thompson/Romney world.
Here is CNBC's explaination on why it pulled the poll:
the fact that ron paul is remotely a second-tier candidate in online polls suggests to me the sheer stupidity of people on the internet rather than any particular sanity on his part. ron paul? might as well vote in ayn rand
god i hate libertarianism. i'd rather take four more years of bush over this lunatic
i mean, it's the digg crowd that's doing all this online ballot-box stuffing, you know that. i stopped reading digg after about the 475th article each day on "RON PAUL IS THE SAVIOR OF MANKIND"
one can interpret the results however they want but taking the poll down is just dumb. so let's say they let it stay up and he gets 75%. then you can discuss why that happened. maybe internet users like ron paul? maybe he's really that popular? maybe the page was hacked... they could discuss and let people draw their own conclusions. if he is polled at 3% elsewhere and 75% in this one, it should ring a bell. come on, people can think for themselves...
either way, taking it down prematurely is just childish.
Only decent thing about Ron Paul is some of his opinions about the Iraq war and US policies on Terrorism.. He seem pretty crazy when it comes to social issues, and his huge hard-on for following the constitution is a bit over the top..
On October 15 2007 23:04 GrandInquisitor wrote: the fact that ron paul is remotely a second-tier candidate in online polls suggests to me the sheer stupidity of people on the internet rather than any particular sanity on his part. ron paul? might as well vote in ayn rand
god i hate libertarianism. i'd rather take four more years of bush over this lunatic
i mean, it's the digg crowd that's doing all this online ballot-box stuffing, you know that. i stopped reading digg after about the 475th article each day on "RON PAUL IS THE SAVIOR OF MANKIND"
Good idea, since Bush has done incredibly well so far. Why change a winning team?
Honestly, I think Ron Paul would make a good president despite the fact that I disagree with him on many issues.
Let's face it, he's not going to be able to do away with medicare, social security, welfare, etc. What he will be able to do is to veto every piece of legislation with any pork attached to it, and conduct foreign policy with some sense.
Paul doesn't get enough credit for being very practical concerning his doing away with social programs. He realizes that people have become dependent so he would construct transitory periods weeding off people from the dependency. I really like his social security stance, which is to let young people get out of it.
I don't know the entire creed of the libertarian philosophy, but I share the same repulsion to central planning of monolithic governments. That is why we need a libertarian president and not some [strike]socialist[/strike] progressive president who wants to give every single person a 1,000 dollars to start a 401k or every baby 5,000 dollars for whatever they want when they hit adulthood.
Isn't that all that really needs to be said? When you actually poll people who are going to vote, it turns out that Ron Paul has no support. CNBC probably realizes that their poll is unscientific, but what they wanted out of their post debate poll was a representation of what debate viewers thought of what they saw. What happened was that Ron Paul's followers spammed the poll in order to get high vote numbers for the candidate they supported. CNBC decided that the poll was pointless (which it was) and took it down. Considering the backlash they're getting, it probably wasn't smart, but they made the same call I would have made.
I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says. In my opinion most of the government shouldn't exist, and Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that's 100% verifiably committed to that. But Ron Paul's views on the Gold Standard and the war on terrorism (a cliche term, but it suffices here) immediately make him a candidate I can't support.
I think it's cool that a candidate for limited government is getting the kind of support Ron Paul is, but most of his following is based off of the fact that he's against the Iraq war. If not for this, Ron Paul would be seen as just another small government lunatic.
On October 15 2007 23:26 Aepplet wrote: one can interpret the results however they want but taking the poll down is just dumb. so let's say they let it stay up and he gets 75%. then you can discuss why that happened. maybe internet users like ron paul? maybe he's really that popular? maybe the page was hacked... they could discuss and let people draw their own conclusions. if he is polled at 3% elsewhere and 75% in this one, it should ring a bell. come on, people can think for themselves...
either way, taking it down prematurely is just childish.
Um...no.
If the poll was hacked or manipulated, it would be "childish" to LEAVE IT UP. How well can people "draw their own conclusions" on false/insufficient information? What would be the point? The only thing it would do is mislead the people that don't realize the inaccuracy, and show the meaninglessness of online polling to the ones that do. What exactly does that accomplish? If they want a discussion about the problems surrounding online polls, they can post an article on that.
You sound like a Ron Paul fan wanting ANY ATTENTION you can get for him.
I hate to break it to you, but it's probably true what they said on the CNBC website link.
Ron Paul is every computer geek's favorite candidate. The streets here are littered with signs in psuedo-stencil: "Google: Ron Paul". The Geek Libertarian Movement, sheesh. That's fine and all, but I could see why they'd then be suspicious of the flood of votes for a candidate most non-internetters don't take very seriously.
On October 16 2007 02:09 HeadBangaa wrote: I hate to break it to you, but it's probably true what they said on the CNBC website link.
Ron Paul is every computer geek's favorite candidate. The streets here are littered with signs in psuedo-stencil: "Google: Ron Paul". The Geek Libertarian Movement, sheesh. That's fine and all, but I could see why they'd then be suspicious of the flood of votes for a candidate most non-internetters don't take very seriously.
haha those same signs were all over Oregon State's campus the other day.
Isn't that all that really needs to be said? When you actually poll people who are going to vote, it turns out that Ron Paul has no support. CNBC probably realizes that their poll is unscientific, but what they wanted out of their post debate poll was a representation of what debate viewers thought of what they saw. What happened was that Ron Paul's followers spammed the poll in order to get high vote numbers for the candidate they supported. CNBC decided that the poll was pointless (which it was) and took it down. Considering the backlash they're getting, it probably wasn't smart, but they made the same call I would have made.
During the last quarter, ron paul raised $5 million. So don't say that he doesn't have any supporters....in fact, if "internet people" are the only ones supporting him, then that money was probably raised in $5 - $20 increments
support for ron paul is of course considerable, but this is worrisome, not a sign of progress. kinda like the sales figures for rand books. over 30 million? hello dysfunctional, pathological approach to social and political theory.
On October 16 2007 02:37 MoltkeWarding wrote: If people are going to discuss Paul's platform instead of the presented topics, I'd like to hear some concrete arguments.
What do not count as Concrete arguments:
1) Paul is bad. Just like Ayn Rand. 2) Paul's platform is crazy 3) I cannot vote for Paul because of his stance on X (without explaination)
I mean might as well get some discussion going here, since very few people seem want to discuss the topic I raised.
Agreed, why don't people like him?
Also, what other candidate would you prefer and why?
I hope he does well. I hold no illusions/delusions of him having any chance of winning, or even getting a VP or cabinet position offer. It is only way to shake up the entrenched and crooked 2 party duopoloy, force them to adjust their tired and self-serving party platforms. Historically, that's the best American 3rd party can do, hope to have some of their better ideas be absorbed by the 2 party establishment.
GWB has set some worrisome Presidential precedents -- historically extensive secrecy, extensive use of Presidential signing statements, large number of recess appointments, historically large number of political and patronage appointees, political and ideological based influence on previously independent Federal institutions (ie Iraq WMD evidence, Global Warming reports), liberal use of War Powers Acts and other Presidential fiats like torture to bypass Constitutional consideration, Congress and public scrutiny. Nixon was in power 30 years too early. I don't doubt a Democrat President would (mis)use all these new precedents of Presidential power in their own way. I think Ron Paul is the best and perhaps only chance to roll them back.
cute step 1 come up with pet definition of libertarianism step 2 argue against laid out pet definition step 3 come to any conclusion you want because your entire argument is subjective
haha seriously I like how you linked to that like it was the sword to slay the libertarian beast
On October 16 2007 02:32 oneofthem wrote: support for ron paul is of course considerable, but this is worrisome, not a sign of progress. kinda like the sales figures for rand books. over 30 million? hello dysfunctional, pathological approach to social and political theory.
You're an Anarchist, aren't you? So who would you want to be president? As far as I know the only thing Anarchists want to do with the government is get rid of it, so what is it that you don't like about Ron Paul? His stance on governmental social programs? lol
cute step 1 come up with pet definition of libertarianism step 2 argue against laid out pet definition step 3 come to any conclusion you want because your entire argument is subjective
The essay is only marginally applicable to the Ron Paul platform. There are many things here which would never be parts of a Paul argument. It would be better to scrutiny parts of the actual political platform rather than making an abstract argument against a conjured model of libertarian philosophy.
That essay seems like much of the theory craft on this site. The fact is that ron paul would get out of iraq immediately, while the others like hilary and bush wish to continue this great war on terror. The reality is that he wouldn't get any of his core "ideals" done because he wouldn't control congress, not even a little bit.
Even if you don't like libertarianism, think of all the things bush has done, and think about how far we are in debt. I think we need a little balance.
Also, don't make the mistake of labeling him with someone else's ideas. Try to argue about his specific platform.
Libertarianism - the belief that free market capitalism is the answer to everything - is nuts. This is because there are some things that have values that should not be trivialized with a dollar amount because it is required for the success of all life - such as clean water, certain forests, global ecology, etc., and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many. It only becomes a matter of time before those left behind rise up against those who force them into poverty, its been witnessed time & time again throughout human history.
Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse.
In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs.
On October 16 2007 02:32 oneofthem wrote: support for ron paul is of course considerable, but this is worrisome, not a sign of progress. kinda like the sales figures for rand books. over 30 million? hello dysfunctional, pathological approach to social and political theory.
You're an Anarchist, aren't you? So who would you want to be president? As far as I know the only thing Anarchists want to do with the government is get rid of it, so what is it that you don't like about Ron Paul? His stance on governmental social programs? lol
how do you interpret 'anarchism.' is it closer to 'waaa taxes!' or 'SOCIALISM!!' i'll take the latter. anarchists would rather have a welfare state than say a neoliberal machine. this is oddly matching the evolution of the nonstatist left.
as for substantive arguments, reading any respectable work in social or political theory should do the trick. i mean, there are not many libertarians, since you can't have a working politcal philosophy without giving at least some attention things like 'property' or 'individuality' libertarian answers to these questions have been lacking, to say the least.
but the ideas of liberalism are important, i'll grant that, jsut that they alone cannot make a theory. they have their places.
Isn't that all that really needs to be said? When you actually poll people who are going to vote, it turns out that Ron Paul has no support.
Well, no, since the polling process is extremely biased (see 2nd link in OP) And how many people are actually going to vote? In the primaries turnout rates in many states hover in the 20% range. The other Republican candidates get marginal enthusiasm which will affect their voter turnout rate, while the Paul camp's turnout rate is going to be disproportionately high. Furthermore one does not need a majority to win a primary, and Paul is not going to suffer the attrition that mainstay Republican candidates are going to by stealing votes from each other.
What happened was that Ron Paul's followers spammed the poll in order to get high vote numbers for the candidate they supported. CNBC decided that the poll was pointless (which it was) and took it down.
If you cannot handle mobilization of support for one candidate or open-ended results, why put up the poll in the first place? Secondly, being marginalized by the mainsteam media makes the online forum the most effective way of bringing publicity to their candidate. Suppression of this kind of political expression is outright imbalanced censorship. It is in effect, the media selecting the winners, rather than allowing an open-ended process to take place. (If Rudy had polled 75% would CNBC have taken the poll down?) It is a sham, really.
as for substantive arguments, reading any respectable work in social or political theory should do the trick. i mean, there are not many libertarians, since you can't have a working politcal philosophy without giving at least some attention things like 'property' or 'individuality' which are oddly taken as primary
What are you talking about? Is, for instance, Lockean theory respectable in your notes?
Calling in the support of "respectable work" on "social or political theory" without further argument merely gives the assertion of erudition without any evidence of it.
On October 16 2007 02:32 oneofthem wrote: support for ron paul is of course considerable, but this is worrisome, not a sign of progress. kinda like the sales figures for rand books. over 30 million? hello dysfunctional, pathological approach to social and political theory.
You're an Anarchist, aren't you? So who would you want to be president? As far as I know the only thing Anarchists want to do with the government is get rid of it, so what is it that you don't like about Ron Paul? His stance on governmental social programs? lol
how do you interpret 'anarchism.' is it closer to 'waaa taxes!' or 'SOCIALISM!!' i'll take the latter. anarchists would rather have a welfare state than say a neoliberal machine. this is oddly matching the evolution of the nonstatist left.
as for substantive arguments, reading any respectable work in social or political theory should do the trick. i mean, there are not many libertarians, since you can't have a working politcal philosophy without giving at least some attention things like 'property' or 'individuality' libertarian answers to these questions have been lacking, to say the least.
but the ideas of liberalism are important, i'll grant that, jsut that they alone cannot make a theory. they have their places.
How do I interpret 'anarchism'? I 'interpret' it as free association and direct action. How can you say that "SOCIALISM!!" is "closer" to Anarchism? The core of Anarchy is that people are free to take care of themselves, in "Socialism" you are free to be manipulated by the state. It's the opposite.
You want governmental social programs? If that's so, just come out and say it. However, if you really are an Anarchist, you should know that people are able to organize themselves to take care of their social needs without being forced by the state. You should know that the state only hinders social interaction, and that their programs are ineficient garbage that only serve to justify the state's existence.
On October 16 2007 02:59 EarthServant wrote: Libertarianism - the belief that free market capitalism is the answer to everything - is nuts. This is because there are some things that have values that should not be trivialized with a dollar amount because it is required for the success of all life - such as clean water, certain forests, global ecology, etc., and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many. It only becomes a matter of time before those left behind rise up against those who force them into poverty, its been witnessed time & time again throughout human history.
Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse.
In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs.
Just like kalami said a few posts ago. You came up with a pet definition of Libertarianism and then proceeded to argue against it. I'd say most libertarians consider polution as an infringement on the property rights of others, and that the state should deal with it as it does with many other infringements on private property. Many advocate a carbon tax, for example.
Ron Paul isn't basing his platform on Libertarianism anyway, he's basing it on the constitution. At least from what I've heard of him.
On October 16 2007 02:59 EarthServant wrote: Libertarianism - the belief that free market capitalism is the answer to everything - is nuts. This is because there are some things that have values that should not be trivialized with a dollar amount because it is required for the success of all life - such as clean water, certain forests, global ecology, etc., and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many. It only becomes a matter of time before those left behind rise up against those who force them into poverty, its been witnessed time & time again throughout human history.
Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse.
In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs.
I agree with you. But, do you know whats worse than free market capitalism? When the government says "Who the hell needs capitalism, when we can just invade another country and pay ourselves to fix it? WE GET RICH 100x FASTER THIS WAY!!"
On October 16 2007 02:37 MoltkeWarding wrote: If people are going to discuss Paul\'s platform instead of the presented topics, I\'d like to hear some concrete arguments.
What do not count as Concrete arguments:
1) Paul is bad. Just like Ayn Rand. 2) Paul\'s platform is crazy 3) I cannot vote for Paul because of his stance on X (without explaination)
I mean might as well get some discussion going here, since very few people seem want to discuss the topic I raised.
I don\'t see how the third one is bad.
I don\'t support ron paul because he supports a VERY free market which is unrealistic for the reasons mentioned above by earth.
He proposes a government which I believe to be too small.
He is pro-life.
He is for religious issues being decided on a local level which definitely doesn\'t guarantee a separation of church and state.
His worship of the constitution creeps me out a bit;p
He is definitely honest and straight forward though. He is also very fun to watch on the debates;)
it is not an assertion of erudition, just a statement on the order of 'divine command theory is not respectable.' and this can be further parsed, that libertarianism is outdated methodologically and incomplete at best normatively. the methodological concerns of liberalism is well documented, and the normative insufficiency is leaking from the theory's every pore. for instance, look at the libertarian treatment of positive and negative rights.
and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many.
So market-based economies result in nothing but the total consolidation of all wealth in the hands of the few, and the impoverishment of the many? How do you explain the fact that many of the more successful nations in the world have market-based economies? Why has the United States been so successful thus far, even though we have a market-based economy?
Just because some guy is making a lot of money doesn't mean everyone else is suffering, and just because some people have money and others don't doesn't mean that we are justified in robbing Peter to pay Paul.
On October 16 2007 02:59 EarthServant wrote: Libertarianism - the belief that free market capitalism is the answer to everything - is nuts. This is because there are some things that have values that should not be trivialized with a dollar amount because it is required for the success of all life - such as clean water, certain forests, global ecology, etc., and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many. It only becomes a matter of time before those left behind rise up against those who force them into poverty, its been witnessed time & time again throughout human history.
Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse.
In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs.
I agree with you. But, do you know whats worse than free market capitalism? When the government says "Who the hell needs capitalism, when we can just invade another country and pay ourselves to fix it? WE GET RICH 100x FASTER THIS WAY!!"
you act like ron paul is the only candidate that is for pulling the troops out:O
If you are normally conservative then you just have to decide if the issue of Iraq is important enough to make you vote democrat, lol.
On October 16 2007 02:59 EarthServant wrote: Libertarianism - the belief that free market capitalism is the answer to everything - is nuts. This is because there are some things that have values that should not be trivialized with a dollar amount because it is required for the success of all life - such as clean water, certain forests, global ecology, etc., and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many. It only becomes a matter of time before those left behind rise up against those who force them into poverty, its been witnessed time & time again throughout human history.
Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse.
In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs.
I agree with you. But, do you know whats worse than free market capitalism? When the government says "Who the hell needs capitalism, when we can just invade another country and pay ourselves to fix it? WE GET RICH 100x FASTER THIS WAY!!"
you can have free market capitalism as long as you make everyone a capitalist. not taking into account the necessary institutional and social factors that would define different capitalist societies and their developmental trajectory.
libertarians should be challenging corporate capital more than anything, dont see it too often though.
and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many.
So market-based economies result in nothing but the total consolidation of all wealth in the hands of the few, and the impoverishment of the many? How do you explain the fact that many of the more successful nations in the world have market-based economies? Just because some guy is making a lot of money doesn't mean everyone else is suffering, and just because some people have money and others don't doesn't mean that we are justified in robbing Peter to pay Paul.
please name some, cause i would be interested:O I assume you are saying there are many first world countries out there with more of a free market then the U.S has currently?
edit: if you are just referring to western countries, yea they are based on a free market with necessary restrictions. In practice, a "free market" with regulations is what works. Not a free market.
Paul thinks that the constitution was founded on libertarian ideals aka liberty and that if you follow the constitution then you follow principles of libertarianism.
On October 16 2007 02:59 EarthServant wrote: Libertarianism - the belief that free market capitalism is the answer to everything - is nuts. This is because there are some things that have values that should not be trivialized with a dollar amount because it is required for the success of all life - such as clean water, certain forests, global ecology, etc., and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many. It only becomes a matter of time before those left behind rise up against those who force them into poverty, its been witnessed time & time again throughout human history.
Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse.
In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs.
I agree with you. But, do you know whats worse than free market capitalism? When the government says "Who the hell needs capitalism, when we can just invade another country and pay ourselves to fix it? WE GET RICH 100x FASTER THIS WAY!!"
you act like ron paul is the only candidate that is for pulling the troops out:O
If you are normally conservative then you just have to decide if the issue of Iraq is important enough to make you vote democrat, lol.
You can't really say that being democrat automatically means no war. This is an assumption many people make, and they use that to draw support from both the oil people and anti-war people who are ignorant. + Show Spoiler +
edit: sorry, that is an old article. I have to go, but ill give an example later.
On October 16 2007 02:59 EarthServant wrote: Libertarianism - the belief that free market capitalism is the answer to everything - is nuts. This is because there are some things that have values that should not be trivialized with a dollar amount because it is required for the success of all life - such as clean water, certain forests, global ecology, etc., and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many. It only becomes a matter of time before those left behind rise up against those who force them into poverty, its been witnessed time & time again throughout human history.
Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse.
In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs.
I agree with you. But, do you know whats worse than free market capitalism? When the government says "Who the hell needs capitalism, when we can just invade another country and pay ourselves to fix it? WE GET RICH 100x FASTER THIS WAY!!"
you act like ron paul is the only candidate that is for pulling the troops out:O
If you are normally conservative then you just have to decide if the issue of Iraq is important enough to make you vote democrat, lol.
You can't really say that being democrat automatically means no war. This is an assumption many people make, and they use that to draw support from both the oil people and anti-war people who are ignorant.
if you are just referring to western countries, yea they are based on a free market with necessary restrictions. In practice, a "free market" with regulations is what works. Not a free market.
Very few candidates running for office want to get rid of all government involvement in the economy. Even if someone who had relatively extreme views such as Ron Paul were to get elected president, his powers and authority to effect change would be limited by the two houses of congress, so any changes he could make would be very moderate.
if you are just referring to western countries, yea they are based on a free market with necessary restrictions. In practice, a "free market" with regulations is what works. Not a free market.
Very few candidates running for office want to get rid of all government involvement in the economy. Even if someone who had relatively extreme views such as Ron Paul were to get elected president, his powers and authority to effect change would be limited by the two houses of congress, so any changes he could make would be very moderate.
yea, but I'm on the other end of the spectrum. While there are many wasted government programs that are inefficient ( these obviously need to be reformed or removed ), I lean towards a more european standard of socialized health care and education.
I'm not saying that at all, just that there are democratic candidates who are for pulling out of Iraq.
None of those will win. Hillary's most successful opponent so far is like 33% behind in some recent polls. Hillary will be the nominee.
Funny how Hillary loves to criticize Bush so much on the war when she voted for the war authorization herself, as did many of the other democrats running.
On October 16 2007 03:18 OverTheUnder wrote: In practice, a "free market" with regulations is what works. Not a free market.
In practice have you ever known anything besides regulated "free markets"?
Not to disagree with your assertion, but since free market simply means that prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, the drug trade, underground slave trade, and the sale of pirated music/video/programs/etc are all good examples of unregulated free market with relation to governments (though they too have their own regulations that are self-imposed)
On October 16 2007 03:25 Vigilante wrote: Very few candidates running for office want to get rid of all government involvement in the economy. Even if someone who had relatively extreme views such as Ron Paul were to get elected president, his powers and authority to effect change would be limited by the two houses of congress, so any changes he could make would be very moderate.
Yes, even if by some miracle RP gets elected, not very much can change. See recent history of Jesse Ventura's experience as Libertarian governor of Minnesota. He ran as a reform candidate, but could barely get anything done. The 2 party machine tried to freeze-him out and it resulted in government gridlock. Both the Democrats and Republicans, and entrenched power lobbying and special interest groups combined their efforts against him. At most RP might clean up a bit of the dead-wood and reform away some of the more blatant waste areas of the Federal government, and a fresh look at old issues. And maybe he will expose some of the dirtier secrets in Washington.
... like Area 51. I want to meet and greet the aliens that invented the internet!
On October 16 2007 03:18 OverTheUnder wrote: In practice, a "free market" with regulations is what works. Not a free market.
In practice have you ever known anything besides regulated "free markets"?
That is a good point, but the flaws of a completely free market seem to be apparent to most people.
i.e a free market without restriction means monopolies, growing gap between the rich and poor, extc. And when there isn't enough of a middle class, the whole system fails either through economic collapse or revolution. ( or both.)
I am completely willing to here any explanation you have for these though.
I don't see why anyone feels it necessary to give their opinion without attempting to influence others, apart from one's fascination with one's own opinions, and the inclination to share them with an indifferent world. Unless you have a moral reputation built up whereby the very statement of your own opinion is sufficient to force others to re-think theirs, why bother? I can say:
-As to the size of government, many, obviously harmful functions inconsistent with the constutition ought to be removed
-He is pro-life (and hence I will vote for him)
-His position on churches is consistent with the First Amendment and not with absurd 19th century spins given to the clause.
-Constitutionalism combines the rule of law with Burkean conservatism which guarantees the balanced political life of the country from disruption from many sources of debasement, from populist tyranny to executive corruption.
So all the statements you make can be turned around to his favour.
it is not an assertion of erudition, just a statement on the order of 'divine command theory is not respectable.' and this can be further parsed, that libertarianism is outdated methodologically and incomplete at best normatively. the methodological concerns of liberalism is well documented, and the normative insufficiency is leaking from the theory's every pore. for instance, look at the libertarian treatment of positive and negative rights.
First of all, you have not defined what "libertarian" is. Secondly, you have again not pursued any arguments directly relevant to the point. How can you invite argument if you make none? Thirdly, Paul is not running on a political platform of philosophical libertarianism. Libertarianism in politics is not much more than an arbitrary category.
lockean theory of what
On property, for instance.
you act like ron paul is the only candidate that is for pulling the troops out:O
If you are normally conservative then you just have to decide if the issue of Iraq is important enough to make you vote democrat, lol.
Iraq is the leading issue in 2008, and besides Paul, there are only Gravel and Kucinich on the Democratic side who have made concrete statements on troops withdrawal.
Besides that, his not-so-well-known themes: restoring the gold standard, abolition of the income tax (Gravel is also for this), rolling back of presidential powers to levels in line with the consitution and enforcing border security are what separate him from the other two "Out of Iraq in four months" candidates.
I lean towards a more european standard of socialized health care and education.
Well, depending on where in europe you'd be talking about, we might be advocating similar policies with regard to education.
Unlike some parts of europe, the USA doesn't have School Choice in many areas, and I think this is an extremely important and needed education reform. The democrats are of no help here - they are beholden to the teachers' unions and oppose the introduction of competition into education, and oppose the freedom of choice with regard to education. In contrast, there seems to be consensus among republicans that School Choice is a good idea, and they deserve major credit for that, imo.
Funny how Hillary loves to criticize Bush so much on the war when she voted for the war authorization herself, as did many of the other democrats running.
well I plan on voting for Obama who wasn't in the senate at the time, but openly spoke out against it so you can't really claim that for him. If he doesn't get the nominee then I'll probably vote for hillary ( even though I hate her). At that point it will be hillary vs one of the leading neo-cons. It isn't even a contest in my mind.
Also, I'm not sure if you are a RP supporter or not but claiming no other dem has a chance with semi close poll numbers but saying RP does would be contradictory. ( assuming you vote realistically which is what it sounds like. )
lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
so ron paul is not running on philosophical libertarianism, which you apparently know, yet you still feel teh need to question my use of libertarianism. i know what libertarians are all about, and i dont really want to discuss ron paul.
anyway, by respectable i mean, published in contemporary journals and not get laughed out of the room.
Funny how Hillary loves to criticize Bush so much on the war when she voted for the war authorization herself, as did many of the other democrats running.
She not only voted for it, she was actively making the case for it.
Obama might get an upper hand if other candidates drop out of the race. Most of the "not-hillary" votes should be given to Obama in a two-horse race.
lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
You're not explaining yourself very clearly. Again, I'm asking you for a positive statement and not merely shooting down opinions with claims of authority. In particular I'd like to see your definition of property, since it's pivotal to understanding your position.
and if ron paul is not running on philosophical libertarianism, which you apparently know, yet you still feel teh need to question my use of libertarianism. i know what libertarians are all about, and i dont really want to discuss ron paul.
You are making your distinct argument independent of the subject of the thread. If you leap into a thread to give your opinion on a branching subject, it's right that you explain yourself if you feel you need to contribute at all.
Also, I'm not sure if you are a RP supporter or not but claiming no other dem has a chance with semi close poll numbers but saying RP does would be contradictory. ( assuming you vote realistically which is what it sounds like. )
I don't really agree with you with regard to the likelyhood of a Ron Paul victory. I think there's a difference in the party primaries between the two right now. I think there are many republicans who are unsatisfied with the current lineup of candidates and/or are undecided in who they will support, so things could still swing in a different direction.
On the other hand, I think the democrats are already pretty much decided on Hillary Clinton. She is just so far ahead in the polls, its hard to imagine her being able to screw this up.
On October 16 2007 03:47 MoltkeWarding wrote: You're not explaining yourself very clearly. Again, I'm asking you for a positive statement and not merely shooting down opinions with claims of authority.
i gave a positive statement. liberalism has its share of good ideas, but libertarianism is overdoing it, to say the least.
a positive theory of property? talking about private property, that it is a peculiar state of society is the received view. this is to be understood as attitudes and customs, along with institutional presence, like law and government. but in any case, a social theory has some necessary methodological commitments, and these define the class of the theory. you can list theories like 'natural law' 'social contract' etc along idealistic lines, theories like evolutionary sociology (group survival etc) in the naturalistic line, and the mainstream theories a mixture of the two. each of these can give a theory, but they are limited by their methods.
i think the contours of the attitude expressed in private property is pretty well traced out. this should be a requirement for any attempts at an analysis fo capitalist societies.
as for the topic, i only posted to ridicule libertarianism.
On October 16 2007 03:47 MoltkeWarding wrote: You're not explaining yourself very clearly. Again, I'm asking you for a positive statement and not merely shooting down opinions with claims of authority.
i gave a positive statement. liberalism has its share of good ideas, but libertarianism is overdoing it, to say the least.
a positive theory of property? talking about private property, that it is a peculiar state of society is the received view. this is to be understood as attitudes and customs, along with institutional presence, like law and government. but in any case, a social theory has some necessary methodological commitments, and these define the class of the theory. you can list theories like 'natural law' 'social contract' etc along idealistic lines, theories like evolutionary sociology (group survival etc) in the naturalistic line, and the mainstream theories a mixture of the two. each of these can give a theory, but they are limited by their methods.
i think the contours of the attitude expressed in private property is pretty well traced out. this should be a requirement for any attempts at an analysis fo capitalist societies.
as for the topic, i only posted to ridicule libertarianism.
I see you're using a lot of words, but I'm completely failing to see any sort of argument from you other than: "libertarianism is bad." The first two sentences or so started to give your opinion, seemingly, and then you went on to define things, still failing to give any sort of argument.
On October 16 2007 02:59 EarthServant wrote: Libertarianism - the belief that free market capitalism is the answer to everything - is nuts. This is because there are some things that have values that should not be trivialized with a dollar amount because it is required for the success of all life - such as clean water, certain forests, global ecology, etc., and also because free market capitalism results in the accumulation of all wealth into the hands of a few, at the impoverishment of the many. It only becomes a matter of time before those left behind rise up against those who force them into poverty, its been witnessed time & time again throughout human history.
Certain things need to be protected and an opportunity to live well (although frugally) in the middle of the economic ladder need to be allowed. These things are being taken away and libertarianism will make it only worse.
In school in the US we are taught about the many wonders of free market economies as if they are godsend, and that is why so many people here fall victim to anti-social beliefs.
There have to be certain restrictions put in place, clearly, but to think that more government control = better is just as absurd a claim.
I wonder how people can look at history, can look at the world right now, and think that the state does them any good. How a state comes about and its purpose is very clear. So clear it's absurd. When did the slave start to love the master's whip?
The majority of the votes are going to come from the bible belt, and the south eastern states. The majority of whom aren't "hip" to computers, and text messaging and online polls. So these polls don't mean much, the problem with our democratic system is that one state doesn't matter that much, but when 7 states all vote the same way because they agree with a religious statement it's ridiculous.
Religion and State should be separate, you shouldn't be able to weigh in on something like abortion/etc in the debates because that is just going to lead to a more religious belief.
Honestly, I think it's a joke.. the whole system is a joke. Why do we even have a president? Why should one person be in charge. Why don't we elect a panel of people, like the supreme court but in charge of what the President does.
I don't know, I don't follow politics much but it bugs me when our country is run by morons.
On October 16 2007 05:04 ViRii wrote: So here's the problem...
The majority of the votes are going to come from the bible belt, and the south eastern states. The majority of whom aren't "hip" to computers, and text messaging and online polls. So these polls don't mean much, the problem with our democratic system is that one state doesn't matter that much, but when 7 states all vote the same way because they agree with a religious statement it's ridiculous.
Religion and State should be separate, you shouldn't be able to weigh in on something like abortion/etc in the debates because that is just going to lead to a more religious belief.
Honestly, I think it's a joke.. the whole system is a joke. Why do we even have a president? Why should one person be in charge. Why don't we elect a panel of people, like the supreme court but in charge of what the President does.
I don't know, I don't follow politics much but it bugs me when our country is run by morons.
Edit: 400 posts.
So basically you want all subjects that are applicable to [I am guessing you mean Christiananity] religious morals to be ignored in political debate? Also you think the president is solely in charge and makes all the decisions? Wowzers dude. I know you admit to not following politics but... the degree suggested in your posts logic is astounding.
On October 16 2007 04:54 kalami wrote: Except there was no ballot box stuffing and that part was completely fabricated.
"The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites."
Come on. It's the same thing that happens here. "Hey, everyone! There's a poll you wouldn't have otherwise heard of! Let's all go an make this same vote together!"
Okay, "ballot box stuffing" isn't precisely the right term, since that has a specific meaning of individuals each voting multiple times, but it's the same thing in principle. One viewer takes an interest in the poll, and instead of just voting himself (the natural behavior the poll's validity is based on), he goes out and recruits a crowd of people who wouldn't otherwise vote and possibly didn't even watch the debate. Those people are acting as the one viewer's agents, in response to his request rather than in response to the pollsters, and that makes it an indirect form of ballot box stuffing.
This is to say nothing of people who went to vote on one computer, then went to vote on another, which is the sort of thing people do when there's a forum-coordinated stuffing campaign.
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
I think its seriously so rigged for democrats. Its almost looks like an experiment for the US. Vote for a black guy or vote for the woman? Neither type have ever held office. Imho as a democrat if I had to vote, I would vote for neither of them.
I think the voting is so fucked up for them just because they are the first, is totally fucking up everything. All these stupid women just voting for that fact, then you have everyone else not voting for Obama just because hes black. And vise versa.
Like seriously if either of these idiots wins as main democrat they have no chance vs any republican, no chance at all.
Unlike some parts of europe, the USA doesn't have School Choice in many areas, and I think this is an extremely important and needed education reform. The democrats are of no help here - they are beholden to the teachers' unions and oppose the introduction of competition into education, and oppose the freedom of choice with regard to education. In contrast, there seems to be consensus among republicans that School Choice is a good idea, and they deserve major credit for that, imo.
Oh man that black teacher 1/3 through the video made me Lol. I thought she said "Learning shit be fun!" but she said 'should'. Anyways this video is right, thats why I said fuck school once I got to 7th/8th grade I was always learning the same shit over and over and nothing was challenging or new anymore. Started ditching a lot and eventually stopped going and took a test saying I could graduate early when I was a junior.
And what that other lady said about Orange county was correct too. In middle school we had portable classrooms and we spent school money on stupid shit like a sun tarp in the lunch areas for like a few kids who couldn't handle the sun (wtf you live in california dipshits??!?) And the stupid tarp (they spend thousands on) couldn't even keep the rain out either. How fucking worthless. The other thing too, every year in the winter when it rained hard half the school would flood and stop everything and slow down school for like a week. Its seriously so fucked up.
I went to catholic school from kindergarden til 3rd grade. By the time I was in 8th grade I was considered one of the problem students or 'bad kids' but I had gotten 3rd place in the spelling bee and had an 11th grade reading level. So many people thought I cheated or something. Public school is just ridiculous.
I am still waiting to see how well school voucher and privatization works in the USA. But I'm not as optimistic it is a magic bullet cure like Stossel wants us to believe if it goes universal. Small test schools are skewed in that they have self-selected and selective student bodies, with unusually involved parents. And the USA is not like other countries; I read this from somewhere else: "Canada and USA could swap health care systems, and Canada health rankings would be ahead of the USA all the same."
I'm coming around to the idea a lot of traditional academic learning could be replaced with internet/computer teaching + parental involvement. Brick and mortar school would still be used for shop classes, social interaction, group projects, mentoring, baby sitting.
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
On October 16 2007 03:47 MoltkeWarding wrote: You're not explaining yourself very clearly. Again, I'm asking you for a positive statement and not merely shooting down opinions with claims of authority.
i gave a positive statement. liberalism has its share of good ideas, but libertarianism is overdoing it, to say the least.
a positive theory of property? talking about private property, that it is a peculiar state of society is the received view. this is to be understood as attitudes and customs, along with institutional presence, like law and government. but in any case, a social theory has some necessary methodological commitments, and these define the class of the theory. you can list theories like 'natural law' 'social contract' etc along idealistic lines, theories like evolutionary sociology (group survival etc) in the naturalistic line, and the mainstream theories a mixture of the two. each of these can give a theory, but they are limited by their methods.
i think the contours of the attitude expressed in private property is pretty well traced out. this should be a requirement for any attempts at an analysis fo capitalist societies.
as for the topic, i only posted to ridicule libertarianism.
I see you're using a lot of words, but I'm completely failing to see any sort of argument from you other than: "libertarianism is bad." The first two sentences or so started to give your opinion, seemingly, and then you went on to define things, still failing to give any sort of argument.
i didn't make an argument there, just getting some clarification on what sort of positive theory i'm supposed to make. i could say property as ideology enshrines privateness, erecting a wall of exclusivity around the self against others. libertarians take property to define islands of privateness within which the individual can go about things 'freely' as in without obligations to others. this idea of negative rights surely trace these islands functionally, as in, what you can't do to me and my stuff. but this is an ideological analysis.
all rights are positive social commitments. negative rights are specific to a certain attitude of privateness that cannot be taken as primary. they must be translatable to positively held social commitments to be of any use as a social theory. by asserting a certain negative right, you are asserting a positive duty to uphold your negative right. libertarians would have you think that this is all their configuration of privateness against the burden of social obligations and basic moral principles can be sustained, but evidently they still depend on civil obligations to respect the order of the day. if you want evidence of libertarian anti-social tendencies, look no further than their treatment of positive rights.
now, what does liberalism without propertarianism say. the only acceptable society is a free society of freely operating individuals. this is fine and great, does not justify libertarian ideology, however. the libertarian, when presented with an offer to do some positive work for society, immediately appeals to negative rights or property claims, as if asking him to help out the needy is a direct threat to his person.
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
So you are against private property?
against? i think it is not a good attitude to have. this mememe stuff. it is something that can be questioned.
private property can only be understood wtihin a certain framework. i may not accept this framework. so specify your framework with proper attention to methodology, so i can see whether i accept it or not.
Funny how Hillary loves to criticize Bush so much on the war when she voted for the war authorization herself, as did many of the other democrats running.
She not only voted for it, she was actively making the case for it.
why can't hillary criticize bush for his management of the war? unless she's criticizing him for starting it, then i don't see the hypocrisy there. when has she mismanaged a war? when has she prolonged a war?
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
So you are against private property?
against? i think it is not a good attitude to have. this mememe stuff. it is something that can be questioned.
private property can only be understood wtihin a certain framework. i may not accept this framework. so specify your framework with proper attention to methodology, so i can see whether i accept it or not.
More like, there are things you can own that no one has the right to take away from you, as long as you aren't actively hurting/endangering others.
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
So you are against private property?
against? i think it is not a good attitude to have. this mememe stuff. it is something that can be questioned.
private property can only be understood wtihin a certain framework. i may not accept this framework. so specify your framework with proper attention to methodology, so i can see whether i accept it or not.
More like, there are things you can own that no one has the right to take away from you, as long as you aren't actively hurting/endangering others.
do you understand what 'own' means.
owning does not equal right to use. it is right to use + right to deprive of use to others. please work on your fundamentals before discussing the issues.
it is only proper to talk about 'taking away' as 'taking away property' in a propertarian framework, or, in the change of hands between two exclusive spheres of property. if say you are in a family of 3 and you 'owned' the oven, and later on you are made to give up yoru 'ownership' it means merely that you lost the right to stop otehrs from using the oven. it says nothing about your right to use the oven.
if you 'own the river', it merely means that your potential to hurt people, by depriving them of the river, is legitimized. legitimizing total individualism within the boundaries of property can only mean legitimizing selfish operations and disregard for moral responsibility. there are way superior frameworks for understanding and supporting credible notions of 'ownership.'
On October 16 2007 01:30 kalami wrote: I don't know the entire creed of the libertarian philosophy, but I share the same repulsion to central planning of monolithic governments. That is why we need a libertarian president and not some [strike]socialist[/strike] progressive president who wants to give every single person a 1,000 dollars to start a 401k or every baby 5,000 dollars for whatever they want when they hit adulthood.
On October 16 2007 01:30 kalami wrote: I don't know the entire creed of the libertarian philosophy, but I share the same repulsion to central planning of monolithic governments. That is why we need a libertarian president and not some [strike]socialist[/strike] progressive president who wants to give every single person a 1,000 dollars to start a 401k or every baby 5,000 dollars for whatever they want when they hit adulthood.
Nobody wants to do that. You're an idiot.
You're the idiot, Clinton floated both ideas just recently.
Incidentally, that is a big reason why I'm not supporting Ron Paul for president. I do not believe he will beat Hillary in the general election.
it is interesting how people associate the welfare administrative state wtih socialism, when it is a product of politics in capitalist societies. socialists are mainly interested in reforming social relations and critically examining capitalist institutions. i mean the guy in the business school touting responsible management is pretty damn socialist. socialims as ideology should be understood separately from socialism as prescriptive government policies.
Going back to the orginal question of whether it was ethical for CNBC to take down the poll results, no, I don't think it was. They should have left the poll results up with a disclaimer that computer logs showed that most of the hits came from Ron Paul websites, and there was some evidence that the polls could have been hacked. That way, they could claim to be allowing people to make up their own minds.
Teamliquid does the same thing with all internet polls, anyway.
On October 16 2007 01:30 kalami wrote: I don't know the entire creed of the libertarian philosophy, but I share the same repulsion to central planning of monolithic governments. That is why we need a libertarian president and not some [strike]socialist[/strike] progressive president who wants to give every single person a 1,000 dollars to start a 401k or every baby 5,000 dollars for whatever they want when they hit adulthood.
Nobody wants to do that. You're an idiot.
someone else already mentioned who was for those things. That same person also wants to make health care essentially compulsory (proof of coverage before you can get a job), and have tax payers pay for the college education of illegal aliens (it's not enough they get free primary and secondary education).
I actually think Ron Paul stands the best chance versus hillay out of any GOP candidate. He beats her on the war issue which is the primary issue.
First of all, text message polls are ridiculous and no way to determine accurate polling information. Only people who care enough to text are counted. As a result, responses are often heavily biased. Every "internet poll" or "call in poll" is meaningless.
online polls, political rallies and meetup groups
None of which translates well into votes...
On to the source which showed that "normal" opinion polls are biased:
Opinion polls are mostly conducted by using telephone landlines. The reason is that landline numbers are easy to obtain, and they produce a fairly accurate and random result for most questionnaires. As known from marketing, each product has a life cycle, and those who hang on to landline numbers tend to be late adopters of new technology. These late adopters do not use the internet, so they have (most likely) not even heard of Ron Paul.
So, what percent of Americans don't have landline phones? It's small. And what percent of these people actually vote? Unfortunately, the young vote in very low percents, while the elderly vote in very high percents. Late Adopters = votes. New Adopters = Forum posts.
In order to reduce the inaccuracy between two polls conducted by the same pollster, vote multipliers are added, which can be based on earlier polls, prior elections, "scientific" analyzes or just simply guesses. Here is how they work. Let's say that a vote multiplier for Rudy Giuliani is 1.2, for John McCain 1.5 and for Ron Paul –3.0. If the pure poll gives Giuliani 25%, McCain 10% and Ron Paul 10% of the vote, the opinion polls are counted to show 30% for Giuliani, 15% for McCain and only 3% for Ron Paul. The chances are that opinion polls for Ron Paul have negative multipliers, since no-one conducting the polls believes that he can win. The same phenomenon has happened in various European countries during the last five years when so-called far right parties (with anti-immigration, anti-EU and fiscal conservative views) have taken many land-slide victories, even if their results in opinion polls have been often either poor or mediocre.
??? Any potential "vote multiplier" would be very small and based on demographic factors, nothing more. Ron Paul would lose at the very most 20%. Yay, he's up to 3.6%!
Opinion polls are not value free or interest neutral. Even if the opinion polling company would want to conduct a poll on honest scientific standards, they still know that their poll has been ordered by USA Today, NBC, FOX News, the Washington Post or the New York Times. So a polling company's self-interest is to produce a result that the mainstream media likes.
It's a conspiracy!!! OMG H4X!
In reality, any manipulation by a credible poll source will be nonexistant.
As Justin Ptak correctly pointed out, "the national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters' views of the candidates." For example Carter was only polling 1% in 1975 and he won the presidency. Back in 1991 Clinton's support was at 2% and he became the president. Joe Lieberman was leading the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003, yet he failed to win a single primary.
That is true.
The Ron Paul revolution has already succeeded
At what exactly? It's a revolution now?
It has brought a lot of attention to the libertarian ideas of peace and a limited government.
Even though as you just said Ron Paul is largely unheard of.
Just like a real revolution the Ron Paul revolution has become a movement everyone wants to join.
Well I sure as hell don't want to join... -------------------------------------------------------------- Why I cannot support Ron Paul for president
Because he would actually be even worse than Bush. Which is pretty freaking difficult.
Ron Paul's economic policies are nothing short of insane, including advocating for the removal of the federal reserve. If that happened the US would crash into a horrific depression overnight, and such an act would undermine the fundamental structure of the US and world economy. That one policy alone would actually be more damaging to America than everything Bush has done during his time in office combined.
Furthermore, Ron Paul has a strict constitutional viewpoint. This means anything not mentioned in the constitution is gone. He is also furiously against any use of government power above constitutional limits. So, no:
Miranda Rights Social Security Medicare Social safety nets for the poor State run education Government business oversight Abortion rights etc.
Again, all with catastrophic consequences.
Ron Paul would be a compelling candidate in 1820. In 2008, his ideas are completely insane and not connected to reality. Lots of people on the internet love Ron Paul. A closer look shows him likely to take away Bush's "crown" as worst president of all time.
With these odds and skewed polls it's possible to see Green Party winning... Some representative of it from my state (NJ) a few years ago was this rastafarian guy with dreads who was all for advocating legalization... He could so win now.
Because he would actually be even worse than Bush. Which is pretty freaking difficult.
Ron Paul's economic policies are nothing short of insane, including advocating for the removal of the federal reserve. If that happened the US would crash into a horrific depression overnight, and such an act would undermine the fundamental structure of the US and world economy. That one policy alone would actually be more damaging to America than everything Bush has done during his time in office combined.
Furthermore, Ron Paul has a strict constitutional viewpoint. This means anything not mentioned in the constitution is gone. He is also furiously against any use of government power above constitutional limits. So, no:
Miranda Rights Social Security Medicare Social safety nets for the poor State run education Government business oversight Abortion rights etc.
Again, all with catastrophic consequences.
Ron Paul would be a compelling candidate in 1820. In 2008, his ideas are completely insane and not connected to reality. Lots of people on the internet love Ron Paul. A closer look shows him likely to take away Bush's "crown" as worst president of all time.
On October 16 2007 10:54 triangle wrote: Ron Paul's economic policies are nothing short of insane, including advocating for the removal of the federal reserve. If that happened the US would crash into a horrific depression overnight, and such an act would undermine the fundamental structure of the US and world economy. That one policy alone would actually be more damaging to America than everything Bush has done during his time in office combined.
Do you realize how close it is to crashing now? China, japan, russia, or saudi arabia could crash our economy anytime they want just by getting rid of their reserves of our money (which is losing value fast).
Furthermore, Ron Paul has a strict constitutional viewpoint. This means anything not mentioned in the constitution is gone.
The president can't magically abolish what he feels like abolishing.
He is also furiously against any use of government power above constitutional limits. So, no:
Miranda Rights Social Security Medicare Social safety nets for the poor State run education Government business oversight Abortion rights etc.
Again, all with catastrophic consequences.
Ron Paul would be a compelling candidate in 1820. In 2008, his ideas are completely insane and not connected to reality. Lots of people on the internet love Ron Paul. A closer look shows him likely to take away Bush's "crown" as worst president of all time.
First of all, this will never happen because the president cant do much without congress. Second, these are very important issues. They've been decided over time by various entities. These are so important that I think amendments to the constitution to include them would be good.
So in other words, they would be decided by 100 people in congress elected by the country, instead of 9 appointed judges on the supreme court. It seems reasonable to me in principle. But again, this will never happen. Neither will the fed change.
The only thing electing him would accomplish in the real world is getting out of iraq, and probably a lot of vetoed bills.
On October 15 2007 23:04 GrandInquisitor wrote: the fact that ron paul is remotely a second-tier candidate in online polls suggests to me the sheer stupidity of people on the internet rather than any particular sanity on his part. ron paul? might as well vote in ayn rand
god i hate libertarianism. i'd rather take four more years of bush over this lunatic
i mean, it's the digg crowd that's doing all this online ballot-box stuffing, you know that. i stopped reading digg after about the 475th article each day on "RON PAUL IS THE SAVIOR OF MANKIND"
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
Can you give me a quote from Locke where he said that when your mix your labor with something it becomes a part of you?
Do you realize how close it is to crashing now? China, japan, russia, or saudi arabia could crash our economy anytime they want just by getting rid of their reserves of our money (which is losing value fast).
This would be much worse, and after we did it they would sell off the dollar anyway.
First of all, this will never happen because the president cant do much without congress. Second, these are very important issues. They've been decided over time by various entities. These are so important that I think amendments to the constitution to include them would be good.
Some of these are not congressional issues. Rhenquist always wanted to overturn Miranda for example. Moreover, If these have not been added yet, why would they be added now? To reign in a rogue president? That's worrisome.
You are almost certainly right that Ron Paul will not be able to push the majority of his domestic agenda. But "His policies are terrible but he can't implement them" is hardly a compelling case for election. And in international affairs, he may be able to pursue his isolationist positions, which would also be problematic.
A Ron Paul presidency would most likely be Ron Paul vetoing the shit out of everything for four years before being voted out. After the past eight years, I think the country need more help than that.
Ron Paul is more principled than any other candidate, and would certainly get us out of Iraq. I just fundamentally disagree with his principles.
On October 15 2007 23:04 GrandInquisitor wrote: the fact that ron paul is remotely a second-tier candidate in online polls suggests to me the sheer stupidity of people on the internet rather than any particular sanity on his part. ron paul? might as well vote in ayn rand
god i hate libertarianism. i'd rather take four more years of bush over this lunatic
i mean, it's the digg crowd that's doing all this online ballot-box stuffing, you know that. i stopped reading digg after about the 475th article each day on "RON PAUL IS THE SAVIOR OF MANKIND"
YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON
if that's the only content you can put in your post then you're not standing from any glorious heights yourself
so many people are so fucking clueless, christ it's so sad
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
On October 15 2007 23:04 GrandInquisitor wrote: the fact that ron paul is remotely a second-tier candidate in online polls suggests to me the sheer stupidity of people on the internet rather than any particular sanity on his part. ron paul? might as well vote in ayn rand
god i hate libertarianism. i'd rather take four more years of bush over this lunatic
i mean, it's the digg crowd that's doing all this online ballot-box stuffing, you know that. i stopped reading digg after about the 475th article each day on "RON PAUL IS THE SAVIOR OF MANKIND"
YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON
if that's the only content you can put in your post then you're not standing from any glorious heights yourself
IM JUST SO TIRED OF IT. IT'S PATHETIC.
i mean honestly there is ENOUGH FUCKING PROPAGANDA ON FOX
you'd think you could go onto a forum with intelligent people and see an actual discussion, with ideas, and facts, and LOGIC
On October 16 2007 11:41 travis wrote: so many people are so fucking clueless, christ it's so sad
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE
Well we wouldn't have a depression overnight cause he wouldn't get anything done;p
But being an honest congressman for 30 years doesn't have much to do with his policies;p
On October 16 2007 11:41 travis wrote: so many people are so fucking clueless, christ it's so sad
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE
Well we wouldn't have a depression overnight cause he wouldn't get anything done;p
But being an honest congressman for 30 years doesn't have much to do with his policies;p
I would rather have a president that accomplishes nothing and polices the rest of the government than any other presidential candidate.
Guys, this is politics. It's not your mothers. I think you guys should take a step back and think something along the lines of "Why am I cursing on a website, calling people morons for their beliefs however misguided I think they are?"
Cursing at a person never changed their opinion unless they were cowards in the first place. Getting angry doesn't help either. Maybe the reason the logic has fled from this topic is the because of the presence of hate. There's no need to insult another person, prove your superiority by countering their points, not by calling them clueless or FUCKING MORONS OMG. So much bitterness over such a trivial aspect of our lives. We're just drops in a rainstorm, by getting all flustered and angry over this won't change the outcome of anything. All you'll do is cause more hate to come back towards you. Who wants to have this asinine flame war anyways :/
His election would not cause a depression. Although the markets may be jittery, there probably would be no serious negative effects.
Removal of the Federal Reserve WOULD cause a depression overnight. That IS true. Sorry to spam more caps at people, but the drop in investor confidence would horribly debilitate the US economy, and that is just short term damage. In the long term such a move hurts the fundamental structure of the US economy itself. International confidence would plummet likely causing a global recession. If you disagree, I advise you to consult a macroeconomics textbook.
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
Presidents tend to have slightly more influence then congressmen. And thank you for misrepresenting what I actually said.
EDIT: I don't want to cause a flame war here. Semi - restrained discussion is vastly better. It's just politics.
Do you realize how close it is to crashing now? China, japan, russia, or saudi arabia could crash our economy anytime they want just by getting rid of their reserves of our money (which is losing value fast).
This would be much worse, and after we did it they would sell of the dollar anyway.
Listen, its just bad all around. Your right, if the system was changed, people would probably panic and there would be a depression. But if it stays the same, there will also be one. I wouldn't be against changing it, but yea it looks bad either way.
But "His policies are terrible but he can't implement them" is hardly a compelling case for election.
I wouldn't agree with "His policies are terrible but he can't implement them" statement. I think amending the constitution to resolve some of the more important issues wouldn't be a bad thing.
HOWEVER...
Moreover, If these have not been added yet, why would they be added now? To reign in a rogue president? That's worrisome.
What works in principle may not always be what happens. The reason they were never added is because no one in congress wanted to do the right thing and actually decide on the issues, because it was so much easier to not deal with them. In principle these things would have already been decided.
Just like, for example, congress must declare war before you can go to war. But they've just stopped doing it... everything is a "conflict" now. (thats right, trillions of dollars on a conflict)
So in principle, yes they should be in the constitution, but since they have been around so long its better to leave (most of) them alone. So if everyone was in agreement, his policies would be good. However, if not everyone was in agreement, they would be bad but wouldn't actually happen.
On October 16 2007 11:41 travis wrote: so many people are so fucking clueless, christ it's so sad
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE
Well we wouldn't have a depression overnight cause he wouldn't get anything done;p
But being an honest congressman for 30 years doesn't have much to do with his policies;p
I would rather have a president that accomplishes nothing and polices the rest of the government than any other presidential candidate.
I don't think Ron Paul would make a bad president, but I would prefer Mike Gravel.
On October 16 2007 11:41 travis wrote: so many people are so fucking clueless, christ it's so sad
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE
Well we wouldn't have a depression overnight cause he wouldn't get anything done;p
But being an honest congressman for 30 years doesn't have much to do with his policies;p
I would rather have a president that accomplishes nothing and polices the rest of the government than any other presidential candidate.
I tend to agree with you....90% of the things that they actually get done end up being bad. If everything just stopped for 4 years I would be ok with that.
I tend to agree with you....90% of the things that they actually get done end up being bad.
Not necessarily. It's just that the bad stuff happened to be really big and bad stuff gets noticed more. Ron Paul vetoing every budget that comes to him would not be pretty. Most of the stuff the congress does is minor. Ron Paul would be great at fighting pork, but if that means less money to schools, the poor, the elderly, etc. I'm troubled. Even if Ron Paul can't actively dismantle medicare, he certainly can veto every increase in its benefits. Same for other social programs.
If everything just stopped for 4 years I would be ok with that.
I probably would have agreed four years ago, but now things are so bad I think the government needs to take some sort of action to radically help the country.
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
Can you give me a quote from Locke where he said that when your mix your labor with something it becomes a part of you?
lockean theory of land ownership
look it up yourself, i dont feel like searching through all that
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
Can you give me a quote from Locke where he said that when your mix your labor with something it becomes a part of you?
lockean theory of land ownership
look it up yourself, i dont feel like searching through all that
The reason I asked is because I have looked it up and have seen no such phrase.
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
Can you give me a quote from Locke where he said that when your mix your labor with something it becomes a part of you?
lockean theory of land ownership
look it up yourself, i dont feel like searching through all that
The reason I asked is because I have looked it up and have seen no such phrase.
oh?
granted locke is heavily interpreted, but talks about lockean theory inevitably invoke classical interpretation such as this
"He begins by asserting that each individual, at a minimum, "owns" himself; this is a corollary of each individual's being free and equal in the state of nature. As a result, each must also own his own labor: to deny him his labor would be to make him a slave. One can therefore take items from the common store of goods by mixing one's labor with them: an apple on the tree is of no use to anyone — it must be picked to be eaten — and the picking of that apple makes it one's own. In an alternate argument, Locke claims that we must allow it to become private property lest all mankind have starved, despite the bounty of the world. A man must be allowed to eat, and thus have what he has eaten be his own (such that he could deny others a right to use it). The apple is surely his when he swallows it, when he chews it, when he bites into it, when he brings it to his mouth, etc.: it became his as soon as he mixed his labor with it (by picking it from the tree)."
"There is a further question whether self-ownership affords a basis for thinking about property in external objects other than my body? John Locke thought that it did (Locke 1988 [1689], II, para. 27). He suggested that when I work on an object or cultivate a piece of land, I project something of my self-owned self into the thing"
On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous.
Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation.
Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject.
his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.
private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination.
Can you give me a quote from Locke where he said that when your mix your labor with something it becomes a part of you?
lockean theory of land ownership
look it up yourself, i dont feel like searching through all that
The reason I asked is because I have looked it up and have seen no such phrase.
oh?
granted locke is heavily interpreted, but talks about lockean theory inevitably invoke classical interpretation such as this
"He begins by asserting that each individual, at a minimum, "owns" himself; this is a corollary of each individual's being free and equal in the state of nature. As a result, each must also own his own labor: to deny him his labor would be to make him a slave. One can therefore take items from the common store of goods by mixing one's labor with them: an apple on the tree is of no use to anyone — it must be picked to be eaten — and the picking of that apple makes it one's own. In an alternate argument, Locke claims that we must allow it to become private property lest all mankind have starved, despite the bounty of the world. A man must be allowed to eat, and thus have what he has eaten be his own (such that he could deny others a right to use it). The apple is surely his when he swallows it, when he chews it, when he bites into it, when he brings it to his mouth, etc.: it became his as soon as he mixed his labor with it (by picking it from the tree)."
You said "his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow."
Nowhere does Locke say that something you mix your labor with becomes a part of you. Self ownership and ownership of property are related, but not to that extent-- not like you described it.
what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
On October 16 2007 11:41 travis wrote: so many people are so fucking clueless, christ it's so sad
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE
Well we wouldn't have a depression overnight cause he wouldn't get anything done;p
But being an honest congressman for 30 years doesn't have much to do with his policies;p
I would rather have a president that accomplishes nothing and polices the rest of the government than any other presidential candidate.
I don't think Ron Paul would make a bad president, but I would prefer Mike Gravel.
watch the recent democratic debate on msnbc and you will see how much of a retard gravel is. All his answers were just ridiculous.
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
On October 16 2007 11:41 travis wrote: so many people are so fucking clueless, christ it's so sad
yeah triangleman, he's managed to make it as an honest congressman since 1976, and yet obviously if he was president we'd immediately have a horrific depression overnight.
WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE
Well we wouldn't have a depression overnight cause he wouldn't get anything done;p
But being an honest congressman for 30 years doesn't have much to do with his policies;p
I would rather have a president that accomplishes nothing and polices the rest of the government than any other presidential candidate.
I don't think Ron Paul would make a bad president, but I would prefer Mike Gravel.
watch the recent democratic debate on msnbc and you will see how much of a retard gravel is. All his answers were just ridiculous.
That's a compelling argument. Thanks for enlightening me!
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary. you can understand his theory of labor to be derivative or at least justified by/based on the idea of self ownership.
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary.
Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property.
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary.
Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property.
only to an audience with no grasp of his theory. quite obviously, to locke, if his theory of self ownership fails, so does his theory of labor and so on, then it is fair to say his theory of property is an extension. i did not try to trace his argument as it is, just a critical overview. lockean theory of property acquires its natural law characteristic largely from the natural impression of self ownership, so drawing this connection is hardly improper.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
Ron Paul is brilliant - the closest to Steve Forbes America can get these days. I'm sick of the bloody Democrats hijacking the term 'liberal' for their own purposes, when they are pro-State intervention in the free market and high taxes.
"In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for social conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer"
yea, let's protest an academic philosopher with moneyz! please get real.
On October 15 2007 22:57 MoltkeWarding wrote: As you may recall, about a week ago there was a CNBC hosted republican debate after which, like every other televised debate, there was an online poll on who the public believed the winner was.
A few moments after the poll went online, CNBC deleted the poll from their website and any trace of it. Why? Of the 7000 people who cast their ballots thus far, Ron Paul won 75 percent of the vote.
Ron Paul has been winning internet/Text messaging votes since the fox debate half a year ago. In case you have forgotten, here is Fox's attempt to downplay or explain away Paul's SMS poll win:
While Reuters places Paul at a meagre 3%, straw polls, online polls, political rallies and meetup groups would suggest that rather than the 2nd tier candidate which CNN or Fox News places him to be, Paul is a first tier candidate, and the only republican candidate whose support is mushrooming every week.
However, the television channels still pretend that this support does not exist and continue living in a Giuliani/Thompson/Romney world.
Here is CNBC's explaination on why it pulled the poll:
I hate conspiracy theories, but there does by all standards seems to be an attempt to stamp down Paul's candidacy. I still don't understand why.
Sure you do. He is likely not an Establishment player or is perceived to represent non-Establishment causes/values which amounts to the same thing. He did run on a Libertarian Party platform in the '80s afterall. What could be more threatening to the current prehistoric political system in Washington than someone who may actually believe democracy means the acceptance of a plurality of opinions (as opposed to just two - Democratic or Republican)?
There is little room for non-Establishment outsiders in the political economy of the United States. No conspiracy necessary. It is simply the nature of the game, in the same way that collusion is not necessary to have two supposedly different news organizations happening to do a story on the same event (to the exclusion of other equally worthwhile stories), or separate businesses all adopting substantially the same set of corporate strategies to maximize profits and increase shareholder value.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Speaking of the democratic debates... check this out. Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran. Watch how the democrat audience and Hillary Clinton respond.
I'm pretty sure she was laughing at his riduculous answer to the original question. Its been a while since I took government but I am quite sure what he was saying is utterly retarded. How will Hilary and Obama force the senate to vote 40 days in a row. You cannot simply end the debates by voting. The vote is only possible when the debates are over. Unless the bill is suported by a supermajority which is required to end a filibuster, the debates will continue. And 40 days??? Why 40 days? Obviously his alluding to Lent. Tim points out the ubsurdity in his response and Gravel responds with "if it stops the killing YES!" Sensationalism. All his answers were quite stupid in this debate actually.
Its kind of surprising that all the comments on youtube and even here deals with Hilary's laugh. Yea its pretty creepy, but I was laughing my damn self at Gravel's response.
edit: Ohh mensrea is back. I always liked his intellegent posts.
On October 16 2007 14:09 oneofthem wrote: oh lawd.
steve forbes?
"In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for social conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer"
yea, let's protest an academic philosopher with moneyz! please get real.
That was the most pathetic and unsubstantiated post I've ever seen. What opposite position? From my knowledge he always advocated low taxes and based his view on abortion from the libertarian perspective of the unborn child (that a child has the right to life without interference). And your second point was stupid - it's his money he can donate it however the heck he wants, what's your retarded problem?
Edit: I just realised you'd taken that straight from Wikipedia, so basically you don't even know what (if any) contradictory stances he took in 1996 and 2000. Sure he changed the relevant tax rates and home buying mortgage rates in line with economic conditions over four years (eg. the Asian economic crises which affected trade worldwide), but it is nowhere near taking an 'opposite' stance (implying a flip-flop in ideology). The referenced link doesn't even show that he supported any other tax position or abortion in 1996 - it simply links to his withdrawal of funding from Princeton because he is against abortion. I would very highly doubt that someone like him would have had any different economic or social position in 1996. It's ignorant idiots like you who lower the standard of political debate with your participation when you don't even know what you're talking about.
On October 16 2007 14:25 gameguard wrote: Its kind of surprising that all the comments on youtube and even here deals with Hilary's laugh. Yea its pretty creepy, but I was laughing my damn self at Gravel's response.
no kidding, she's 60 years old. media picks apart at any insignificant flaw in a person until 60 year old ladies can't even laugh on camera? there's such bigger fish to fry... the tabloid stands are that way folks get the fuck out of politics if this is what you want to focus on.
On October 16 2007 13:46 Vigilante wrote: Gravel expresses his disdain for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over their support for legislation allowing Bush to go to war with Iran.
what? wasn't the bill just "calling for a detailed report on the role Iran plays in equipping and funding terrorists in Iraq."
On October 16 2007 14:09 oneofthem wrote: oh lawd.
steve forbes?
"In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for social conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer"
yea, let's protest an academic philosopher with moneyz! please get real.
That was the most pathetic and unsubstantiated post I've ever seen. What opposite position? From my knowledge he always advocated low taxes and based his view on abortion from the libertarian perspective of the unborn child (that a child has the right to life without interference). And your second point was stupid - it's his money he can donate it however the heck he wants, what's your retarded problem?
Edit: I just realised you'd taken that straight from Wikipedia, so basically you don't even know what (if any) contradictory stances he took in 1996 and 2000. Sure he changed the relevant tax rates and home buying mortgage rates in line with economic conditions over four years (eg. the Asian economic crises which affected trade worldwide), but it is nowhere near taking an 'opposite' stance (implying a flip-flop in ideology). The referenced link doesn't even show that he supported any other tax position or abortion in 1996 - it simply links to his withdrawal of funding from Princeton because he is against abortion. I would very highly doubt that someone like him would have had any different economic or social position in 1996. It's ignorant idiots like you who lower the standard of political debate with your participation when you don't even know what you're talking about.
hahaha my retarded problem is that he is using his money for reactionary and unenlightened causes. further, my retarded problem is a commitment to progressive humanism and concern for the future development of the healthy human community. surely such retarded causes must be unworthy of your inspired sensibilities.
i am not interested in forbes, just the interesting event of someone holding him up to be a good political idol. if you want to talk about how being a starting partner of PNAC is a good thing, go ahead.
On October 16 2007 14:53 oneofthem wrote: hahaha my retarded problem is that he is using his money for reactionary and unenlightened causes. further, my retarded problem is a commitment to progressive humanism and concern for the future development of the healthy human community. surely such retarded causes must be unworthy of your inspired sensibilities.
i am not interested in forbes, just the interesting event of someone holding him up to be a good political idol. if you want to talk about how being a starting partner of PNAC is a good thing, go ahead.
What the heck? If he was using taxpayer's money for these causes then he ought to be held to account. But the fact is that it is his own money and he can choose to spend it however the heck he wants. His donation, as with most charitable donations, to Princeton University was 100% VOLUNTARY. You are in no position to critic the way he chooses to donate his money. For example, why don't you list the charities you donate to, and if for example you listed Tear Fund and World Vision it would be absolutely stupid for me to then say: "you are an idiot because you do not donate to the International Leprosy Mission". He has absolutely ZERO obligation to be committed to donate to Princeton and it's completely within his rights and choice whether or not he decides to continue spending money there or not.
If for example you were a donor to the Democrats, then they came out with a policy you weren't happy with, such as right-wing welfare reform (as under the Clinton administration), and you'd rather donate to the campaigns those on the hard left, then who the heck is anyone else to tell you that you're not committed to donating to Clinton? You owed nothing to Clinton in the first place. What's worse in this scenario is that he is spending taxpayer's money, so that you would have a right to have a say in how it is spent, as opposed to Forbes donating out of his own private interests.
yes, i was talking about his 100% voluntary commitment to reactionary and unenlightened causes. apparently the privateness of property even extends to a moral insulation over the exercise thereof. you are a little too quick on the trigger there, in your eagerness to defend unenlightened figures.
you are aware that this very attitude of private public business is a symptom of a diseased public discourse, right. if i privately advocate for your murder, is it private. if i privately advocate for a particular view of society, is it private. not to mention the oxymoron status of 'private advocacy,' out from which exotic realm did you pull that moral immunity of 'private affairs.' please grasp the basics, so that you are at least aware of your own fallacies.
You make 100% no sense. If you were donating to a cause, and they hired someone whom's views you disagree with (eg. replaced Al Gore with George Bush on climate change), would you not say that you have a right to withdraw your support for the cause?
except that, you are just 100% not comprehending the issue. i did not object to forbes within the peculiar logic of property, but simply stated that he is shitty. that you instinctively rely on such a technical misrepresentation of my statement shows your unwillingness to discuss the substantive matters at hand, the moral status of forbes' actions.
yes, within a property discussion, he 'has the right' to do so, but that does not make what he does any more valid. if he withdrew support because he supported bush rather than gore, that is a stupid and unenlightened choice, and of course, you can challenge this proclamation by making relevant arguments to show how supporting bush rather than gore is more enlightened and progressive.
On October 16 2007 16:41 oneofthem wrote: except that, you are just 100% not comprehending the issue. i did not object to forbes within the peculiar logic of property, but simply stated that he is shitty. that you instinctively rely on such a technical misrepresentation of my statement shows your unwillingness to discuss the substantive matters at hand, the moral status of forbes' actions.
yes, within a property discussion, he 'has the right' to do so, but that does not make what he does any more valid. if he withdrew support because he supported bush rather than gore, that is a stupid and unenlightened choice, and of course, you can challenge this proclamation by making relevant arguments to show how supporting bush rather than gore is more enlightened and progressive.
Well that's you changing the argument. Your original reply was, in fact, regarding the fact that he was using his money to somehow influence policy, and the relevant part you quoted was on his withdrawal of funding from Princeton. I figured the reason you quoted it was because that was the extent of your knowledge about him and that it was the only part of the Wikipedia article which spoke of him in a negative light. You didn't for a single moment mention any arguments as to why tax cuts are bad or abortion is bad, you simply made a statement with nothing to back up the opposing views, and rather attacked the fact that he used his money. Now you are changing the debate to say that you were somehow getting at something else, when you never did.
If you want to say why he is shitty, then you have to back it up. You don't quote a part of Wiki which makes an unsubstantiated claim about his policies being contradictory and then end it with an attack on how he chooses to spend his money, then expect a debate on the merits/demerits of his policies without even discussing them yourself in the first place rather than a rebuttal of the method you chose to attack him. It would be as stupid as me saying: "Al Gore spends his money on raising awareness for global warming which is stupid", and then expect you to justify why it is not when I didn't even give reasons for why it is stupid in the first place for you to rebut.
But I'm guessing that you're not really that smart and that like I stated above, rather than actually addressing why tax cuts are in your opinion bad and that abortion is OK you're simply changing what you meant in your first reply now 'cos I've already debunked your original reasoning and line of attack.
i said he was unenlightened and reactionary, repeatedly. i did not say he does not have a right to spend the money in whichever way, (really, do you expect such arguments to hold any water whatsoever) i merely said he is being reactionary and nonprogressive etc. the issue was clearly framed as a discussion on the humanitarian or progressive characteristic of his actions. you merely fail to engage the argument on this relevant level.
please make a fair attempt at argument, i am not going to clean up that mess. the more you write, the worse you look.
"In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for social conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer"
yea, let's protest an academic philosopher with moneyz! please get real.
Nowhere do you even attempt to discuss the pros and cons of supply side economics or social conservatism. You simply attack his donation to Princeton and how he chooses to allocate his funds. You then go on to state:
yes, i was talking about his 100% voluntary commitment to reactionary and unenlightened causes. apparently the privateness of property even extends to a moral insulation over the exercise thereof. you are a little too quick on the trigger there, in your eagerness to defend unenlightened figures.
you are aware that this very attitude of private public business is a symptom of a diseased public discourse, right. if i privately advocate for your murder, is it private. if i privately advocate for a particular view of society, is it private. not to mention the oxymoron status of 'private advocacy,' out from which exotic realm did you pull that moral immunity of 'private affairs.' please grasp the basics, so that you are at least aware of your own fallacies.
How exactly does this make sense? Are you saying that we should have no private right to spend our money and that for example, instead of you having your own right to spend your money on buying a Starcraft CD with your own earned money from your part time job or whatever someone else should decide for you to buy something else instead? You have a right to privacy if it is within your own property. Privately advocating someone else's murder is not within your private right because you are infringing on other people's private right to life, that's why we have the criminal law to make such so-called 'private rights' illegal. Please grasps the basics of private property rights so you are at least aware of your own fallicies. For more information read up on classical liberalism because it pretty much sums up Steve Forbe's political philosophy (as well as mine).
i said he was unenlightened and reactionary, repeatedly. i did not say he does not have a right to spend the money in whichever way, (really, do you expect such arguments to hold any water whatsoever) i merely said he is being reactionary and nonprogressive etc. the issue was clearly framed as a discussion on the humanitarian or progressive characteristic of his actions. you merely fail to engage the argument on this relevant level.
please make a fair attempt at argument, i am not going to clean up that mess. the more you write, the worse you look.
YOU are the one who did not attempt to engage the argument on a relevant level. Nowhere do you attempt to discuss why he is reactionary and non-progressive. It would be as stupid as me saying: "Al Gore is an idiot because he supports global warming" without even providing any reasoning as to why global warming is right or wrong. How am I supposed to have a debate with you on Steve Forbe's policies as being enlightened or not when you don't even offer to suggest why they are unenlightened besides a statement which I'm supposed to take your word on? Please provide reasoning why you disagree with supply-side economics, then we can start having a sensible debate.
Note also by saying his policies are unenlightened you have effectively made a statement which contradicts the views of pretty much 90% of economists (whether commercial or academic).
Edit: note also I had already provided a reference in my first response to you to the thesis 'Economics in One Lesson' regarding why supply side economics is good.
i said he was unenlightened and reactionary, repeatedly. i did not say he does not have a right to spend the money in whichever way, (really, do you expect such arguments to hold any water whatsoever) i merely said he is being reactionary and nonprogressive etc. the issue was clearly framed as a discussion on the humanitarian or progressive characteristic of his actions. you merely fail to engage the argument on this relevant level.
please make a fair attempt at argument, i am not going to clean up that mess. the more you write, the worse you look.
YOU are the one who did not attempt to engage the argument on a relevant level. Nowhere do you attempt to discuss why he is reactionary and non-progressive. It would be as stupid as me saying: "Al Gore is an idiot because he supports global warming" without even providing any reasoning as to why global warming is right or wrong. How am I supposed to have a debate with you on Steve Forbe's policies as being enlightened or not when you don't even offer to suggest why they are unenlightened besides a statement which I'm supposed to take your word on? Please provide reasoning why you disagree with supply-side economics, then we can start having a sensible debate.
Note also by saying his policies are unenlightened you have effectively made a statement which contradicts the views of pretty much 90% of economists (whether commercial or academic).
Edit: note also I had already provided a reference in my first response to you to the thesis 'Economics in One Lesson' regarding why supply side economics is good.
see, this is an example of relevant debate, although horribly repetitive and insubstantial.
i feel no need to defend the assertion that, advocating for social conservatism and the aegis of capital (let's face it, supply economics is basically moar profit margin) is horribly unenlightened, since i think respectable society has already moved past the point of dignifying such postures.
On October 16 2007 17:20 oneofthem wrote: yes, i attacked his withdrawing of donations to the uni as an example of reactionary and unenlightened behavior.
i made the argument first, it was at a level i set it. you are moving it from its starting point, not me.
OK then, why is it reactionary and unenlightened? He disagrees with abortion. There are many on both pro and anti sides and if he happens to be on the anti abortion, pro-life side then it's not very surprising that he would not want to be funding someone who is pro-abortion. If it was the other way around, would you expect someone who advocates abortion to donate to pro-life groups?
Edit: note also that if you want to address the topic of abortion and why pro-abortion is enlightened you have not provided any points or arguments to begin debating on.
see above. now that you finally got away from that mechanical propertarian loop. geez that was a dizzy ride.
or, read below
i did not attempt to argue a position, since i was only making a comment. yes, i realize that you could contend that reactionary policies are enlightened, but i refuse to participate in that discussion. you could however engage the vast body of literature produced on the subject.
You started it with your first comment (and if you can't see why your first comment was so badly worded and structured then you still don't get it). Next time just write something like: "I think Steve Forbe's policies sucks because I believe his stances are not enlightened, I don't want to discuss why I simply want to point out that I disagree with him" rather than trying to bring in his withdrawal of funding and attacking him on the basis that doing so was somehow wrong (ie. that you don't agree with freedom of expression in the form of putting your money where your mouth is).
On October 16 2007 17:21 oneofthem wrote: i feel no need to defend the assertion that, advocating for social conservatism and the aegis of capital (let's face it, supply economics is basically moar profit margin) is horribly unenlightened, since i think respectable society has already moved past the point of dignifying such postures.
Well OK if you're not going to defend it then there's no point debating, but remember that most economic academics would disagree with your assertion.
Edit: and also it's disappointing that you're unwilling to debate it and justify your reasoning as to supply side economics being profit-focused, because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do understand supply-side economics (as explained in the Economics in One Lesson thesis) and are able to rebut it, rather than just being ignorant of it and someone who's never studied economics post-graduate before. There are economists who are against supply side-economics, such as Josef Stalinger (former head of World Bank), but most economists disagree with his views. Anyhow, since you're not gonna debate it then there's not a lot to discuss.
On October 16 2007 17:33 JesusCruxRH wrote: You started it with your first comment (and if you can't see why your first comment was so badly worded and structured then you still don't get it). Next time just write something like: "I think Steve Forbe's policies sucks because I believe his stances are not enlightened, I don't want to discuss why I simply want to point out that I disagree with him" rather than trying to bring in his withdrawal of funding and attacking him on the basis that doing so was somehow wrong (ie. that you don't agree with freedom of expression in the form of putting your money where your mouth is).
that you demand your normative tidbits in peculiarly shaped packages is your problem. as i have said before, this is your property logic talking. i have no idea why you would interpret 'forbes is unenlightened' as anything but 'forbes is unenlightened.'
On October 16 2007 17:39 oneofthem wrote: as if you have any idea of academic economics.
what luminaries will you draw? hayak? rothbard? entertain me.
I have an undergraduate degree (three years study) in commerce majoring in economics from the University of Canterbury. Although I am passionate about economics I ended up taking Law instead of post-graduate economics and am currently doing my legal internship (5th year) but you're welcome to look at the credentials of my economics lecturers (www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz), who are mostly right-wing (with the exception of Seamus Hogan). I don't know if you know but New Zealand was the first country in the world to majorly reform supply side economics in the late 80s under Roger Douglas, it's where the term Rogernomics came from, and then later Ruthanasia (and interestingly, where Clinton's policy advisors looked at as a starting point for his social security/welfare reforms in the 90s when he put in schemes like work for the dole and time limits on benefits).
i am well aware that you can hold a respectable position on the moving about of various economic indicators, but do realize that taking these things to be primary goods is lacking. not to mention the very nature of economic analysis is static when it comes to states of society. this is the domain of sociology. now i am not going to take issues iwth your economics as far as new zealand, but you should not then project new zealand onto other societies, this is not taking into account of how you evaluate success of the thing in new zealand.
now, the interesting thing is, neoliberalism has been widely documented and criticized, and the various arguments seem to make sense. i do not know if your economics would overturn this, i rather doubt it. 90% of academic economists? do they all support forbes's quixotic campaign then? do a poll like 'corporate profit margins is key for supply side economics to work,' how many would agree. yes, if you give more profit opportunities, they will goa bout it, but profits are not value neutral. it only appears so to a propertarian view of the world.
in any case, advocacy of government policies is only one potential source of social change. i dont know why forbes is not touting say workers rights and stuff, like you know, responsible corporate behavior and intelligent public policies. the kewl kids are all doing it.
further, looking at the list of things forbes advocates, he is like the god of teh bourgeoisie. i doubt you appreciate this though.
I think my Ron Paul support boils down to this: he's not perfect, but he's the closest shot America has to fixing our outrageous policies and nearly limitless powers to not only the president, but the federal government in general. If he can set precedent that hey the most important thing is that people live freely and not bound by so many political restrictions, life will be better. Ron Paul is not a loony running, he's a congressman, he understands the reality. No matter how ideally one may think, you have to create a practical means of carrying out that ideal. I could debate all the issues on why I like him and support most of his views, but he's our only shot.
Quite frankly even if you hate his social opinions, would you rather be able to debate the issues and do what's best or would you rather have your population get killed off by countless wars to not be around any longer to debate the issues?
Unfortunately for any of this to do any good Ron Paul must win because the establishment will not take influence from his ideas, he either wins and changes things or loses and his ideas fall on deaf ears. That's an unfortunate reality.
By the way JesusCrux I'm going to Canterbury for a semester this January :D
I agree with Ron Paul on pretty much everything. Not only that, he really seems to be one of the very few honest people in our government, which makes me feel even better about supporting him. On the whole, I would feel fantastic voting for him in the republican primary.
EDIT: Many people have a misconception that all Paul supporters are just anti-war activists. While I definitely wouldn't say I'm "pro-war," this is far from the deciding factor in why I'm supporting him. His positions on social issues like civil liberties are direly needed. We need a president who has the balls to veto things like the Patriot Act, or laws that will suspend Habeas Corpus, or violate our constitution.
i am well aware that you can hold a respectable position on the moving about of various economic indicators, but do realize that taking these things to be primary goods is lacking. not to mention the very nature of economic analysis is static when it comes to states of society. this is the domain of sociology. now i am not going to take issues iwth your economics as far as new zealand, but you should not then project new zealand onto other societies, this is not taking into account of how you evaluate success of the thing in new zealand.
I didn't want to bring NZ into this either but the reason I raised it was because many Scandinavian and Eastern European countries are now being advised by the very politicians who implemented those policies in NZ and are experience great economic growth.
now, the interesting thing is, neoliberalism has been widely documented and criticized, and the various arguments seem to make sense. i do not know if your economics would overturn this, i rather doubt it. 90% of academic economists? do they all support forbes's quixotic campaign then? do a poll like 'corporate profit margins is key for supply side economics to work,' how many would agree. yes, if you give more profit opportunities, they will goa bout it, but profits are not value neutral. it only appears so to a propertarian view of the world.
There are definitely external factors but the basic premises is that private markets result in economic growth, which as a result leads to alleviation of poverty. Of course there are areas where government must intervene, but I don't know what you mean by 'corporate profit margins is key'... Less corporate tax results in more investment which leads to things like more small businesses being started up and thus greater employment... Which is arguably more successful than taxing companies highly and redistribution.
in any case, advocacy of government policies is only one potential source of social change. i dont know why forbes is not touting say workers rights and stuff, like you know, responsible corporate behavior and intelligent public policies. the kewl kids are all doing it.
You're not very specific. How did Forbes not tout workers rights? What are you referring to? If you're talking about minimum wage I'm sure you're well aware of how raising the minimum wage affects availability of employment. Or probation periods, it's generally those on the Left who are against them. Or increasing public wages... Which screws up the efficiency of private/public competition and accountability. Holiday pay... Well, it certainly gives people an incentive to get ahead so that they can afford to take time off work... Which is a problem for education to deal with, rather than labour laws. What kind of workers' rights are you thinking of?
further, looking at the list of things forbes advocates, he is like the god of teh bourgeoisie. i doubt you appreciate this though.
Finally, if you think he's in it for the money he and his associates are probably better off not being politicians and making billions by taking advantage of the Democrats getting into power, because it would mean less competition for them as less people have the incentive to become rich and powerful in the business environment.
Seriously though, if you haven't read it before I'd really recommend reading Economics in One Lesson, which answers most of your general questions... let me just quote one part of it, since you mentioned workers rights:
We have already seen some of the harmful results of arbitrary governmental efforts to raise the price of favored commodities. The same sort of harmful results follow efforts to raise wages through minimum wage laws. This ought not to be surprising, for a wage is, in fact, a price. It is unfortunate for clarity of economic thinking that the price of labor’s services should have received an entirely different name from other prices. This has prevented most people from recognizing that the same principles govern both.
Thinking has become so emotional and so politically biased on the subject of wages that in most discussions of them the plainest principles are ignored. People who would be among the first to deny that prosperity could be brought about by artificially boosting prices, people who would be among the first to point out that minimum price laws might be most harmful to the very industries they were designed to help, will nevertheless advocate minimum wage laws, and denounce opponents of them, without misgivings.
Yet it ought to be clear that a minimum wage law is, at best, a limited weapon for combatting the evil of low wages, and that the possible good to be achieved by such a law can exceed the possible harm only in proportion as its aims are modest. The more ambitious such a law is, the larger the number of workers it attempts to cover, and the more it attempts to raise their wages, the more certain are its harmful effects to exceed any possible good effects.
The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $106 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $106 a week to an employer will be employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.
The only exception to this occurs when a group of workers is receiving a wage actually below its market worth. This is likely to happen only in rare and special circumstances or localities where competitive forces do not operate freely or adequately; but nearly all these special cases could be remedied just as effectively, more flexibly and with far less potential harm, by unionization.
It may be thought that if the law forces the payment of a higher wage in a given industry, that industry can then charge higher prices for its product, so that the burden of paying the higher wage is merely shifted to consumers. Such shifts, however, are not easily made, nor are the consequences of artificial wage-raising so easily escaped. A higher price for the product may not be possible: it may merely drive consumers to the equivalent imported products or to some substitute. Or, if consumers continue to buy the product of the industry in which wages have been raised, the higher price will cause them to buy less of it. While some workers in the industry may be benefited from the higher wage, therefore, others will be thrown out of employment altogether. On the other hand, if the price of the product is not raised, marginal producers in the industry will be driven out of business; so that reduced production and consequent unemployment will merely be brought about in another way.
When such consequences are pointed out, there are those who reply: “Very well; if it is true that the X industry cannot exist except by paying starvation wages, then it will be just as well if the minimum wage puts it out of existence altogether.” But this brave pronouncement overlooks the realities. It overlooks, first of all, that consumers will suffer the loss of that product. It forgets, in the second place, that it is merely condemning the people who worked in that industry to unemployment. And it ignores, finally, that bad as were the wages paid in the X industry, they were the best among all the alternatives that seemed open to the workers in that industry; otherwise the workers would have gone into another. If, therefore, the X industry is driven out of existence by a minimum wage law, then the workers previously employed in that industry will be forced to turn to alternative courses that seemed less attractive to them in the first place. Their competition for jobs will drive down the pay offered even in these alternative occupations. There is no escape from the conclusion that the minimum wage will increase unemployment.
The belief that labor unions can substantially raise real wages over the long run and for the whole working population is one of the great delusions of the present age. This delusion is mainly the result of failure to recognize that wages are basically determined by labor productivity. It is for this reason, for example, that wages in the United States were incomparably higher than wages in England and Germany all during the decades when the “labor movement” in the latter two countries was far more advanced.
In spite of the overwhelming evidence that labor productivity is the fundamental determinant of wages, the conclusion is usually forgotten or derided by labor union leaders and by that large group of economic writers who seek a reputation as “liberals” by parroting them. But this conclusion does not rest on the assumption, as they suppose, that employers are uniformly kind and generous men eager to do what is right. It rests on the very different assumption that the individual employer is eager to increase his own profits to the maximum. If people are willing to work for less than they are really worth to him, why should he not take the fullest advantage of this? Why should he not prefer, for example, to make $1 a week out of a workman rather than see some other employer make $2 a week out of him? And as long as this situation exists, there will be a tendency for employers to bid workers up to their full economic worth.
All this does not mean that unions can serve no useful or legitimate function. The central function they can serve is to improve local working conditions and to assure that all of their members get the true market value of their services.
For the competition of workers for jobs, and of employers for workers, does not work perfectly. Neither individual workers nor individual employers are likely to be fully informed concerning the conditions of the labor market. An individual worker may not know the true market value of his services to an employer. And he may be in a weak bargaining position. Mistakes of judgment are far more costly to him than to an employer. If an employer mistakenly refuses to hire a man from whose services he might have profited, he merely loses the net profit he might have made from employing that one man; and he may employ a hundred or a thousand men. But if a worker mistakenly refuses a job in the belief that he can easily get another that will pay him more, the error may cost him dear. His whole means of livelihood is involved. Not only may he fail to find promptly another job offering more; he may fail for a time to find another job offering remotely as much. And time may be the essence of his problem, because he and his family must eat. So he may be tempted to take a wage that he believes to be below his “real worth” rather than face these risks. When an employer’s workers deal with him as a body, however, and set a known “standard wage” for a given class of work, they may help to equalize bargaining power and the risks involved in mistakes.
But it is easy, as experience has proved, for unions, particularly with the help of one-sided labor legislation which puts compulsions solely on employers, to go beyond their legitimate functions, to act irresponsibly, and to embrace short-sighted and antisocial policies. TI do this, for example, whenever they seek to fix the wages of their members above their real market worth. Such an attempt always brings about unemployment. The arrangement can be made to stick, in fact, only by some form of intimidation or coercion.
One device consists in restricting the membership of the union on some other basis than that of proved competence or skill. restriction may take many forms: it may consist in charging new workers excessive initiation fees; in arbitrary membership qualifications; in discrimination, open or concealed, on grounds of religion, race or sex; in some absolute limitation on the number of members, or in exclusion, by force if necessary, not only of the products of nonunion labor, but of the products even of affiliated unions in other states or cities.
The most obvious case in which intimidation and force are used to put or keep the wages of a particular union above the real market worth of its members’ services is that of a strike. A peaceful strike is possible. To the extent that it remains peaceful, it is a legitimate labor weapon, even though it is one that should be used rarely and as a last resort. If his workers as a body withhold their labor, they may bring a stubborn employer, who has been underpaying them, to his senses. He may find that he is unable to replace these workers with workers equally good who are willing to accept the wage that the former have now rejected. But the moment workers have to use intimidation or violence to enforce their demands—the moment they use mass picketing to prevent any of the old workers from continuing at their jobs, or to prevent the employer from hiring new permanent workers to take their places—their case becomes suspect. For the pickets are really being used, not primarily against the employer, but against other workers. These other workers are willing to take the jobs that the old employees have vacated, and at the wages that the old employees now reject. The fact proves that the other alternatives open to the new workers are not as good as those that the old employees have refused. If, therefore, the old employees succeed by force in preventing new workers from taking the place, they prevent these new workers from choosing the best alternative open to them, and force them to take something worse. The strikers are therefore insisting on a position of privilege, and are using force to maintain this privileged position against other workers.
If the foregoing analysis is correct, the indiscriminate hatred of the “strikebreaker” is not justified. If the strikebreakers consist merely of professional thugs who themselves threaten violence, or who cannot in fact do the work, or if they are being paid a temporarily higher rate solely for the purpose of making a pretense of carrying on until the old workers are frightened back to work at the old rates, the hatred may be warranted. But if they are in fact merely men and women who are looking for permanent jobs and willing to accept them at the old rate, then they are workers who would be shoved into worse jobs than these in order to enable the striking workers to enjoy better ones. And this superior position for the old employees could continue to be maintained, in fact, only by the ever-present threat of force.
By the way, that's cool you're coming to Canterbury this Summer Alizee (it will be Summer here, anyway)! The weather here is great at the moment! What made you choose to come here? And what will you be studying? If you want someone to show you 'round the beaches and stuff let me know
i feel that you do not appreciate certain things as i would like you to, due to unappreciated methodological concerns. admittedly this is a slippery area.
workers' rights is not necessarily understood as a hostile demand backed up by the threat of legal force. talking about worker as a part of society, it is simply corporate and capital management recognizing labor in a social way and engaging in fair discussions, rather than by force of market, to negotiate wages. society is here understood not as a random collection of individuals but a state of affairs with peculiar attitudes etc among the individuals.
talking about legally enforced workers rights(a separate discussion), it si basically a legal deprivation of the capitalist power to coerce. i find little problem in this. whether the capitalist then decide to do less business is another problem. maybe they simply would have to be told that they do not do business for themselves.
a private market is a horrendously simplified statement. if i were still concerned with the narrow subject of economic growth no dobut i'd be a free marketer, but in consideration of the humane and progressive society i must submit to the principle of a healthy society understood as a harmonious and sustainable set of attitudes.
now my psoitve social doctrine is rather lengthy to put into words, since it involves methodological concerns(as devleoped by my understanding of some metaphilosophical concerns, particularly in regard to language and normative discourse) delineating categories of appeal and with them the specific languages of analysis. for instance, speaking about 'the evil of low wages,' i would say this is a reification of the issue. the issue is 'the evil of certain employers giving out low wages.' what would be a positive doctrine in response to this? make it plain to capitalists that they do not work alone and are in cooperation witht he people they hire. this seems to be the only way out of the situation, and is directly against the narrow world view of private property. i would characterise my positive social doctrine as primarily an ethical plea. the central methdological thesis is that, a normative social theory is ethical. of course i do have a practical public policy theory but it is rather plain.
i am not ignorant of economics, contrary, i do very well in economics, but i can see its limits from a few lightyears away. of course, the force of critical analysis diluted into the workings of a specific social structure viewed from a specific perspective is disheartening, and this is why i do not do economics or political science, insofar it is understood as government. as i said before, normative, prescriptive theory limit their audience by limiting their reification of human actions. the nonreified is the audience.
anyway
Finally, if you think he's in it for the money he and his associates are probably better off not being politicians and making billions by taking advantage of the Democrats getting into power, because it would mean less competition for them as less people have the incentive to become rich and powerful in the business environment.
no, he is not in it for the money. he is in it for his spirit of capitalism and conception of individaul and private enterprise. both are flawed pathologies at best.
Less corporate tax results in more investment which leads to things like more small businesses being started up and thus greater employment...
results in? as in a chemical reaction? surely you dabble in human motivation and such. profit margin, the celebration of private gain, is at least taken as primary here.
There are definitely external factors but the basic premises is that private markets result in economic growth
i am not talking about growth or material wealth etc, but an analysis of social attitudes and behavior. of course, i am free to recognize material deprivation where i see them, but here the concern is that, taking economic growth as primary is not even making a firm statement on social welfare, much less constitute a theory of social health.
i have to join the ron paul seems like a constitutionalist rather than libertarian side here although he kind of is both that derives from the american constitution being quite libertarian and while I generally greatly disagree with that (I want a big, powerful state with huge taxes able to guarantee the welfare of all it's citizens), he deserves respect for his consistency, and having based his politics around a genuine belief system and an ideology rather than going with the popular flow.
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary.
Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property.
only to an audience with no grasp of his theory. quite obviously, to locke, if his theory of self ownership fails, so does his theory of labor and so on, then it is fair to say his theory of property is an extension. i did not try to trace his argument as it is, just a critical overview. lockean theory of property acquires its natural law characteristic largely from the natural impression of self ownership, so drawing this connection is hardly improper.
You misrepresented his progression from self ownership to land ownership in order to poo poo it.
On October 16 2007 21:55 MarklarMarklar wrote: Pro-life people are crazy, It's not like we'll run out babies any time soon.
The right of individuals to life is not contingent upon the needs or wants of the rest of society. If you want to make the argument that fetuses aren't people/persons/individuals/whatever and thus don't have rights, I'd be willing to listen. Otherwise, I am going to support the right to life.
On October 16 2007 21:55 MarklarMarklar wrote: Pro-life people are crazy, It's not like we'll run out babies any time soon.
The right of individuals to life is not contingent upon the needs or wants of the rest of society
Says who?
Guns.
Basically, if you decide that you have the right to take the life of an individual, he will probably disagree, and get some type of weapon to defend himself. If you decide to take the lives of a group of individuals, they will most likely form some type of group and do the same thing. On larger scales these are called wars.
(this technically does change who really has what rights, but the winner will decide what the definition of rights are, so its irrelevant)
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary.
Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property.
only to an audience with no grasp of his theory. quite obviously, to locke, if his theory of self ownership fails, so does his theory of labor and so on, then it is fair to say his theory of property is an extension. i did not try to trace his argument as it is, just a critical overview. lockean theory of property acquires its natural law characteristic largely from the natural impression of self ownership, so drawing this connection is hardly improper.
You misrepresented his progression from self ownership to land ownership in order to poo poo it.
erm, no. that i can poo poo it legitimately rather testifies to my truthful representation of his theory. i eman the actual argument of poo pooing it will inevitably invoke his labor stuff so i dont consider the shorthand a problem.
oneofthem - I don't actually see how I can respond to your reply because you've put forward ideals but they don't work practically in the real world. I haven't seen your doctrine and you say it's too complex to explain but you seem to be saying that we need to change the capitalist system. The only way I can think of doing this is through big government and force (Marxist socialism). That's the only alternative that can achieve that, because how do you intend to change the 'ethics' of employers? For example, when you wrote:
'the evil of low wages,' i would say this is a reification of the issue. the issue is 'the evil of certain employers giving out low wages.' what would be a positive doctrine in response to this? make it plain to capitalists that they do not work alone and are in cooperation witht he people they hire. this seems to be the only way out of the situation, and is directly against the narrow world view of private property.
Well, that situation is addressed in the chapters I pasted - you simply cannot 'force' someone to give out high wages. How would you hold someone to account? Either through a) economic incentives, or b) force of the law. Which is explained in the spoiler above in my last post.
It's sickening how your candidates depend on campaign contributions while you're basically running a 2 party system... and still call yourself a democracy. Seriously, get the money out of your system... :/
On October 17 2007 08:25 Monsen wrote: It's sickening how your candidates depend on campaign contributions while you're basically running a 2 party system... and still call yourself a democracy. Seriously, get the money out of your system... :/
What do you mean? How does one remove the money from the system?
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary.
Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property.
only to an audience with no grasp of his theory. quite obviously, to locke, if his theory of self ownership fails, so does his theory of labor and so on, then it is fair to say his theory of property is an extension. i did not try to trace his argument as it is, just a critical overview. lockean theory of property acquires its natural law characteristic largely from the natural impression of self ownership, so drawing this connection is hardly improper.
You misrepresented his progression from self ownership to land ownership in order to poo poo it.
erm, no. that i can poo poo it legitimately rather testifies to my truthful representation of his theory. i eman the actual argument of poo pooing it will inevitably invoke his labor stuff so i dont consider the shorthand a problem.
On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!'
No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance.
what do you mean
the only instance up to interpretation is this
the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest'
this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary.
Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property.
only to an audience with no grasp of his theory. quite obviously, to locke, if his theory of self ownership fails, so does his theory of labor and so on, then it is fair to say his theory of property is an extension. i did not try to trace his argument as it is, just a critical overview. lockean theory of property acquires its natural law characteristic largely from the natural impression of self ownership, so drawing this connection is hardly improper.
You misrepresented his progression from self ownership to land ownership in order to poo poo it.
erm, no. that i can poo poo it legitimately rather testifies to my truthful representation of his theory. i eman the actual argument of poo pooing it will inevitably invoke his labor stuff so i dont consider the shorthand a problem.
You didn't do so legitimately. fail
look, you have no case here. either youa re trolling or you do not have a grasp of what constitutes a good citation. perhaps you learned this in a different format, not my fault. this shorthand tracing of arguments is pretty common, and unless locke's thing is not based on his idea of self ownership you have no reason to complain. since i made the assertion, i only had to make sense in one way, my way, your role is understanding that. further objections are only based on stylistic points.
Interesting as all of the arguments may be, not one is properly rooted -- philosophically speaking.
Imagine that there was a debate about a starcraft strat but the opening bo was not mentioned or included in the context of the discussion. It would be discarded.
What do I mean by this? So, as one example, let's suppose that someone thinks the government SHOULD do X or not do X. However, people disagree about what should and should not be done. The only place for the argument to go is an analysis of what gives weight to the SHOULD. So Hitler said the Jews should be treated this way. Other people said they should be treated some other way. What makes one way 'right' and the other 'wrong'. Politics is an offshoot of ethical theory. Without analysis that goes in this direction -- that is, analysis that makes explicit and provides justification for ones ethical theory, further argument seems fruitless.
that, the normative grounding, not merly idealistically but methodologically (normative considerations expressed in various phases of the analysis by tehnature of the discourses used), should be elementary to any competent social and political theory.
"...normative considerations expressed in various phases of the analysis by the nature of the discourses used...should be elementary to any competent social and political theory."
First -- Are you claming that these considerations are necessary or sufficient or both for a S/P theory to be competent?
Second -- Why should this be elementary?
Third -- What system do we use to evaluate the "...nature of the discourses used..." and why?
these are methodological concerns. kinda like the road signs or guard rails to keep your analysis straight.
you could have a purely empirical inquiry, talking about human beings naturalistically and employing physiological descriptions for psychological states and so on, but the scope of inquiry is limited by our available methods of investigation. that, you only know so many physiological and neural structures. and in examining normative matters involving mentalistic expressions, it is not immediately clear how to translate or categorize them. they are still normative. for example, if we are looking at something like + Show Spoiler +
, it would apparently be unproblematic to say, this is fear, an emotion, and take it as physiology. this would be fine if fear was merely the reference to the physiology. but, our present understanding of mind and neuropsychology does not really allow for a completely naturalistic inquiry, and even these follow a certain theoretical framework. inevitably treatments of this sort involve the normative connection between the expression of fear and the analysis of the mechanism of expression. there are efforts then made to connect the normative states by their normative significance, such as fear is terrifying, etc. this is a layer of analysis that is thick with the normative.
a clearer version of that would be, imagine the methodology of empirical inquiry as this, machine > environment > response. but when the environmental inputs are normative inputs, the machine isolated by only correspondence with expressions of normative/mental stuff, (for example, the physiological analysis of pain), and the response, usually taken as normatively relevant, is still conveyed normatively, it is difficult to say this is an empirical inquiry. an actual example may be, 'people in tribal societies are constantly fearful of starvation.'
the main difficulty is really in mixing up things like 'people in tribal societies are fearful of starvation' with 'people survive by committing to solidarity in a tribal situation.' if you isolate teh normative elements of each, with their peculiar expressions, you'll see that these are vastly different methods of analysis.
a more important concern, for me, is the way the language of analysis defines analytic forms, or, the incommensurability of causal vs expressive analysis. to make a normative point, you necessarily must express normative sentiments and engage in normative arguments. it is irreplaceable as a facet of investigation by mere descriptive accounts, however valid those are. related topics to this idea, reification, alienation etc.
the mechanism for evaluation of the nature of discourses used is their respective admissibility of arguments. this is soemthing closer to epistemic class than paradigms. thsi is best understood descriptively as natural faculties with certain expressive forms, and another analysis may be that, the logical contour or shape of ideas and theories involved are 'close circle.' anyway, my background is analytic mostly, so i am very sensitive to these stuff.
It's unproductive to see the matter of libertarianism as an ethical argument even moreso than it is to see the Ron Paul candidacy as a candidacy of libertarianism. Virtue is a voluntary act, in no way contrary to individualism or even "self-interest" since the latter is not necessarily the same as selfishness. I am inclined to agree that the moral sustainability of human behaviour is of a greater importance than economic sustainability, but how one proposes to apply that theory to the society we are faced with is a question which no human has the intelligence to answer. The corrective for moral excess belongs to the history of cultural epochs, not political ones, and is certainly not considerable in a case where someone is running for political office for four years.
As for abolishing the Federal Reserve, Ron Paul will not do this immediately or unilaterally. He would, if anything, legalize competing currencies and allow gold to circulate alongside the paper dollar.
well talking about morality as concerning with the normative attitudes and states of mind, it is valid to describe the moral dimension of poltiical theories. for politics is activity and morality is a function/faculty the expression of which is important by nature.