anticipation

he's nothing special in terms of having a crazy political philosophy, especially compared to his fellow conservatives.

boo boo

Religion can become a government.

Again, I don't even know what the argument you're making here is, you're stating the obvious, just in a way that's harder to understand because your way of phrasing things is incredibly confusing.

So you admit he wants to go backwards instead of coming up with any progressive ideas.

Which btw reminds me, Paul wants to get rid of NASA too.

Try rephrasing this entire post, this time in a way that actually makes some damn sense.

I'm sorry if I believe a government is actually supposed to have a function, one that doesn't just include the protection of peoples rights, but even some forms of community service.

Wanting to disban the FBI and CIA is pretty much the definition of a ridiculously stingy psychopath.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Inuzuka Skysword

If that is what you mean to say, then I could throw in any irrational movement, such as humanitarianism, and call it a government.


You act as if the government we live under will always be right. Even if it went by popular opinion, like a democracy should, we could still be in the wrong. My point is that you are so cynical of business and religion, but when it comes to our government you look at it as if it will always be doing the right thing.

Yes. I don't think Ron Paul is a great guy. I just think he is a better alternative than anyone right now. I don't like his religious tendencies or his subjective morality-libertarian views, but his political and economic philosophy is credible for the most part.

If you call getting in debt progressive, then Ron Paul is definitely your enemy. I never understood why that group of political ideas is called "Progressivism," when the heart of it is out to destroy the mind. I mean, when you tell someone to neglect themselves, you can expect to go backwards.

To put it in a basic form, your politics are based on no philosophy. You accept the fact that we are to live for others. You look down upon people who are selfish, greedy, and stingy. Why is it wrong, though? On what basis can you accuse someone for being evil when they are selfish?

Also, the idea that having the government run some areas of business is preposterous. What establishes the price for the government's work? Things like socialized health care are what I am mainly talking about because The doctors will not be able to gain more pay through competition. The doctor should be able to choose how much he wants to work for. If the government allowed him to do this, he could just rob the government of money because they would have to pay them. So the government will have to establish a price. How are they to find the right price? What is the right price? Is there an objective price for work, or is the value of work based on supply and demand?

lucifer_sam

i actually had the opportunity to attend a lecture given by Ron Paul. he certainly isn't as crazy as people make him out to be, and his "radical" ideas are pretty much common sense for the most part. he's far from being a theocratic conservative, although he's "right wing" in the economic and political sense.

while i don't necessarily agree with his approach to economics (pure excise taxes would be atrocious for the working class), he's an intelligent and frank politician -- two qualities rarely seen anywhere in Washington. i'd much rather see him in office than any of those other, savvier political fucks. too bad he wasn't on the ballot in PA.

__________________
first.am

The Unfan

The difference is that humanitarianism has no claims to moral absolutes, so it can't become a strict government.

Inuzuka Skysword

In other words, it claims that there is no objective morality. If this is the case, then morality becomes a wild card where anyone can force anyone else to do anything. Humanitarianism does claim to support a morality though. It has ethics that are based on duty in that you are responsible for the well being of everyone else on this planet.

I am not anti-government. I think that Objectivist politics, which are related to libertarianism, are deceiving. If anything, I am pro-government when it comes to the enforcement of the law and the protection of individual rights. I believe that there should be a very strong government in those areas. However, I disagree that the government should be strong in the economic area. It interferes on the happiness of those who live under it. The market which was (theoretically) run by strict supply and demand is now run by a person picking who should survive and who should not. I don't believe anyone should be making that choice.

Son of JayJamJah

Ron Paul is far from crazy, thanks to Lucifer Sam for interjecting some reason. While it's certainly debatable that he is qualified to be the president, I like his ideas and common sense approach way better then any other candidate we've had this decade. Boo Boo, your opinion on him couldn't be any farther from the way I've experienced him listening to him speak, reading what he writes and reviewing his political record. Also Unfan agrees with you, the same Unfan who thinks it's a good idea to claim Led Zeppelin stole much of the music they made famous.

__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread

Inuzuka Skysword

Ron Paul's writing isn't too good. I read The Revolution: A Manifesto because it was on sale. It really is just Constitution worship in a simple form for everyone to understand. Some of the writings he recommends at the end aren't too bad including Ayn Rand's works, Mises' works, and some of Rothbard's. I don't really think that Libertarianism is good though seeing that it is devoid of any moral base and even the name suggests that liberty is the end which it seeks. Objectivism sees man's own life, his pursuit of happiness, as the end. Objectivism claims to know the objective morality, whereas most arguments for Libertarianism defend it because of the opposite. Politically they are similar. Everywhere else they are much different.

Son of JayJamJah

I enjoyed it quite a bit and thought he did an excellent job of working in plain speak to reach as many open minds as possible.

You and I will always branch apart when it comes to the origins and foundations of morality. Morality in my experience is inherent to the individual and the environment in which they grow up. I find individual Liberty and it's preservation one of the most morally sound pursuits imaginable.

__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread

The Unfan

No, it just doesn't make a moral claim.

There is a difference between ethics and morality. Humanitarianism requires a strong sense of ethics, but not a strong sense of morality, or even any sense of morality.

A million times this. Morality is not something which can be objectively right or wrong; it is simply an opinion of good and bad based on your upbringing and/or natural inclinations. Is murdering someone ever good? Maybe. Is it ethical? No.