Expletive Deleted

"Ron Paul is for freedom."



Probably the funniest thing I've read all day. The fact that you describe yourself as an Anarcho-Capitalist is also sort of funny, but it's more cute than anything else.

Obama for me. I don't think he's the presidential messiah or whatever some of his more die-hard supports believe, but any Democrat is better than McBush.

TheBig3

Yeah well its really not in the context we're speaking about it. Don't speak to me as if I don't know what I'm talking about, if you want a boring "technical" and pedantic snooze fest you can have it. But you know what I mean and sticking to Websters to dodge a valid point is terrible.

Explain to me how government isn't the people? They can vote people out, they can vote people in and the only case you might have is Judicial appointees which thanks to the checks and balance system can be routed, so why do you continue to differentiate between the people and the government.


Well first of all, Bush put a ban on federal funding for Stem cell research, so thats the largest hurdle now and knowing McCain, its going to be lifted. He considers himself more science oriented, certainly less Christian, and if he's the conservative he says he is, he wouldn't but federal restrictions on things like that. Even Roe v. Wade is a states rights issue.

You can cite Louisiana and I can cite Pennsylvania. In 2004 or so, when the school committee in one PA district decided to teach evolution with creationism, the entire school committee was voted out of office. You're watching the ignorant get left behind. You're looking at die hards who've been thrown into office, who repeatedly claim to hate politics get crushed because after a decades worth of oppression, the moderate and sane-minded politicians have figured out how to beat these people.

The Christians were a clever and powerful group, but like the socialists and communists of the 1930's, they've produced nothing, and soon those who expected change from them will become disenfranchised. The nut-job jesus-freaks are sliding backwards. Mark my words.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Son of JayJamJah

To Paul supporters these are all good things. It's not as if taxes, roads, and disaster relief would go away, they would just be private enterprises instead of government ones. Your road repair would go to the highest bidder not the only candidate.

Paul is a Libertarian and Libertarian's believe the free market and private citizens can do things a lot more cost effectively and efficiently then the Government can.

Paul represents a candidate that would actually have a tangible effect on day-to-day life. That's appealing to a lot of folks. More people are starting to realize there is no difference between Bush and Obama or McCain they are all in favor of government regulations, they just argue over who gets to get paid.

Rather or not Paul can do the things he promises we will never find out, but I have to say I'd much rather have a guy like him in office then 95% of the candidates I've seen in my lifetime. At least he'd try.

Inuzuka Skysword

Care to state an argument, or are you just here to play games?

The people in the government are the ones actually making the choices. Common people are just voting people in who they think will win. See, this two party system that is dominating our government is actually taking away power from us. Nowadays we care less about who supports our beliefs and we merely vote for who supports more of our beliefs in the two parties. So the people are almost forced to vote for people who don't really represent them. So the representatives are not really representing our beliefs any more. Now if it was direct democracy of some sort, than yes, I would agree with you, but in a democratic-republic it is the government who has the power to do things and all we have is the power to vote for people who may possibly support some of our beliefs.

Son of JayJamJah

Well put, I've been voting for 30 years and still have not found a candidate on the state or national level that really inspires me. It's takes millions of dollars and support from one of the two big parties to be a serious candidate. That's not the way it was supposed to work.

Cecilia

I would love to see Nader just be like, "WHABAM I just ruined your two party system." But I think it'd take a much worse democratic candidate for that to happen.

I'll end up voting for Obama (assuming I can vote... I'll be in London at the time of the election) because I'm way over this Republican thing. Bush hasn't done anything productive with the country and he's completely ruined what little faith I had in the Republican party. If he miraculously turned his **** around, I'd consider McCain for about two seconds before I'd question my own sanity.

Expletive Deleted

No, I'm just here to laugh at you. Having had to argue with a few people who Ron Paul has brainwashed, you'll probably just talk some **** about how all his policies are what the "founding fathers wanted" and show nothing but a basic misunderstanding of not only the Constitution and the way America was founded, but how America has evolved since. This isn't 1787, and Ron Paul isn't Thomas Jefferson.

Oh, not to mention the fact that Anarcho-Capitalism has been refuted by respected economists time and time again. You're just the right-wing equivalent of the youthful idealists who still believe Communism can work, etc.

Inuzuka Skysword

Argument from authority fallacy

It has not been refuted economically. There are some refutes, such as the fact that no one will have a monopoly on force. Economically, many people have endorsed it.

Secondly, I supported anarcho-capitalism before I even supported Ron Paul. I was not brainwashed by Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the only candidate who represents libertarian beliefs and has a chance.

After all this attacking on me, I have yet to hear your political opinions and ideals.

Expletive Deleted

Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. He never did.

Classical liberalism has existed in America since it was founded, how can you say that Anarcho-Capitalist theory has never been applied in practice when many of our founding fathers did in fact believe in it? Thankfully activist judges and congressmen did away with it over time, but it's an economic theory that has certainly influenced American politicians for over 200 years. Many institutions even today are still based in Anarcho-Capitalist theory, health care being the most obvious example.

It's also an economic theory that is inherently flawed, since it doesn't take into account the free rider problem, market distortions, the fact that all goods would not be consumed at the same rate, or any other problems that would arise in a pure capitalist society. Not to mention the fact that Anarcho-Capitalism, just in title alone, is a paradox. Capitalism doesn't simply exist by itself, the government is what grants you private property and individual rights. As an economic theory it's almost laughable. It would fall apart even sooner than pure Communism, because the detrimental affects would be felt almost immediately.

My opinions and ideals don't even matter here. We're not talking about me, we're talking about you.

Inuzuka Skysword

Good argument [/sarcasm]

No, our founding fathers believed in libertarianism with a minimal government, which is why the put a government in place. They were influenced by laissez-faire capitalism, but not anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is not just an economic theory. It is a theory that includes how governing forces will be under an anarchic society with capitalism. Wikipedia describes it as abolishing the state and replacing it with free markets. I think you are misinterpreting with anarcho-capitalism is.


1. These problems would not necessarily happen seeing we haven't observed free market capitalism to the extent where no state is present.

2. Social contracts are what create individual rights and again, you don't understand what anarcho-capitalism is. There would still be police forces under anarcho-capitalism that would protect individual rights. There would be no state and these police forces would be owned through private enterprise.

I understand that, but I would at least like to know your standpoint.