lucifer_sam

I'm not saying the existing legislative system works for everything. But you have to understand there's a much larger measure of elasticity in that regard. Things can change, and they can be changed.

The Mafia was busted by the FBI's 1970 RICO laws, not Federal income tax. The government went after the Mafia BECAUSE they weren't paying the bills for all the shit they were fucking up,

One thing I have always supported and will continue to do so is the accessibility of knowledge. The idea is basically that in a relatively transparent society, we are the ones that entrust politicians with the power to govern, but we shouldn't fear them for it. Those same "corrupt" politicians that people bitch "new boss. same as the old boss." would get impeached by their constituents. There would be no place in America for the Tom Corbetts of the world.

And I want to clarify, I wouldn't want to get rid of a police force. That is one of the fundamental ideas that I happen to disagree with Paul about. I would like to see those policemen culpable for their own actions (something we certainly do not do in America today). Getting rid of a police force altogether sounds absolutely terrifying to me.

__________________
first.am

Mykonos

That is exactly what I meant by libertarians having a place in politics. A lot of people associate them with the 'the entire country should be free of all government interference!' types and it's a bit ridiculous. Either that, or they link it with personal freedom and accuse people that dislike their policies of being against freedom.

A good example of why I think a Libertarian styled government is bad overall is the NHS. We've had the system for years, and despite the many complaints about it it makes us a country willing to stand up for basic human rights. A lot of countries still have private healthcare, which in my eyes is a system that should have been left to die in the Victorian era where it belonged. To me, it's doing exactly the opposite of what being a libertarian is supposed to be about, as it's denying people the rights they should (and can) have access to.

__________________
'Not that Becktionary, the Rhyming Becktionary!'- Bender Bending Rodriguez

lucifer_sam

Please, if you're going to rebut an argument, don't do it piecewise.

You're taking quotes I've said completely out of context; it's the act of arguing for the sake of contention rather than discussion.

I never said I've adopted all libertarian views...I've even brought up two key elements where I disagree STRONGLY with Ron Paul. Does that mean I won't vote for him? Fuck no, he's only about 95% in the right.

You're using the term "libertarian" as an associative tool to denigrate my argument rather than address the valid points I've been making. The British healthcare system is such an obscure analogy I don't know how you would expect Americans to care or even fathom it. Please explain how this has ANYTHING to do with adopting a libertarian stance.

If you agree with me on some things, please address those. Knowledge moves by ASSENT, not DISSENT (I'm an anti-Hegelian for sure in this department). We don't get anywhere by posting bull**** about each other.

__________________
first.am

anticipation

It's funny that you mention this because in reality our entire food production system is systematically introducing new toxins into our food every day just to combat the millions of bacteria, insects, and disease-causing agents that have grown immune to some of the most caustic materials on Earth. Do a bit of research on GMO's and industrial farming practices and you'll see countless warnings being made against what the government deems "safe" and what is actually healthy for you.

lucifer_sam

Yup.

Industrialized technology outpacing the limitations of evolution.

Guess who would get rid of this crap?

...Ron Paul.

__________________
first.am

hip hop bunny hop

Wait, Ron Paul isn't dogmatic? Really? Of the words used to describe Ron Paul, "pragmatic" is not one that comes to mind. Really, whether it's his worshipping at the thrown of Austrian Economics, naming his son after Ayn Rand, and then having a magical reading of the constitution that'd restrict the Federal Govt. so much that Austrian economic policies would prevail (gee, that's a coincidence)....

...to give you an idea of how insane Ron Paul's reading of the constitution is, it's opposed to the goddamned Louisiana Purchase.

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

The Ultimate Hustla

i like the stoned one !!

Mykonos

You know, I would debate back, but you've clearly already made up your mind about this argument Lucifer, so I'd be wasting my time.

__________________
'Not that Becktionary, the Rhyming Becktionary!'- Bender Bending Rodriguez

lucifer_sam

Hahahaha.

I think it's hilarious when people enter the Current Events, Philosophy and Religion threads and aren't prepared to discuss philosophy. The easiest way to explain this misinterpretation is I am a philosophical idealist. Marx was a materialist, and the two interpretations lend themselves to entirely different spectra of politics.

If you're actually interested in my reasoning, I can explain, but it seems like you just don't give a shit and you think my opinion is pure conceit. Please, let me know if this isn't the case. I'm not about to force this shit down your throat.

How familiar in Hegelian and existential philosophies are you? Can I bandy about some jargon without letting it get too convoluted?

__________________
first.am

lucifer_sam

Drop the sarcasm.

You started a joke thread on a serious subject, and you can't defend your perspective any better than you can understand mine. But guess what? The foundations to my argument aren't grounded in the arbitrary. Are yours?

And for the fucking record, I have never read an Ayn Rand novel. I have one sitting on my shelf that I still can't manage to open.

__________________
first.am