I leave the blog on queue for a few days and a Ron Paul war erupts on #politics.
Way to be the custodians of quality, guys.
I don’t actually know of which post you speak, but the absolute falsity of such charges are obvious to anyone not blinded by an ideological desire to baselessly smear the opposition.
Sometimes, the best response is rolling like Buddha and letting that nonsense bounce off your belly like a grain of rice tossed by a child. Because when philosophical and intellectual rivals must resort to sweeping ad hominem, their puerility reveals their desperation.
There may be genuine points of contention about how the most just and prosperous society would function. Data and morality may be considered and parsed in earnest discussion. But, and perhaps I only speak for myself, once an ideological opponent accuses me specifically of dishonesty or nefarious ulterior motives, I take it as a sign that no thoughtful or productive conversation can likely be continued.
So your impulse to chuckle is right: there’s no need to respond. This type of commentary is meant for their echo-chamber of like-minded ideologues or unthinking followers. There is nothing that can be said, no matter how clearly truthful, that can dissuade those looking for validation of their own prejudices (frankly, this can sometimes be true for our side as well).
Though if you must respond, know who you are truly addressing: not the aforementioned entrenched ideologues or unsophisticated acolytes, but those spectators who do think and consider arguments. Therefore, responding to insults in kind will not place you in their good graces and may close an otherwise open mind.
Democrats portray Republicans as evil, selfish dolts who engage in class warfare, foster groupthink, and are willing to destroy society for the sake of their corrupt ideology.
Meanwhile, Republicans portray Democrats as evil, selfish dolts who engage in class warfare, foster groupthink, and are willing to destroy society for the sake of their corrupt ideology.
Come on, guys. There’s no need to fight.
You’re both right!
Shorter Ron Paul: Everything is unconstitutional.
Re: Medicare, income taxes, and even the dollar bill.
It’s hard to believe, I know, but anything that’s not actually in the Constitution is - wait for it - unconstitutional. See: Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Of course, technically income taxes are, unfortunately, constitutional per the 16th Amendment. Though it, along with the two amendments that followed, are about as counter to the spirit of limited, federalist, and balanced government that was envisioned by most of the Constitution’s framers.
But such is what happens with all government, no matter how well-intentioned: eternal expansion for the benefit of the connected at the expense of the individual.
So if you don’t want to get into the fact that the military spending in the United States exceeds the spending of nearly all other countries on planet earth combined… That it is built to maximize costs… That political engineering ensures those costs almost never come down… That our foreign meddling tends to produce more enemies than it eliminates… That you didn’t ask the soldiers to do anything on your behalf… That most of what they do is for the benefit of politicians, bureaucrats, foreign oligarchs, and corporate interests - and not the actual American people… That some soldiers, particularly those from lower income homes, may view “service” as - in a country with a minimum wage, deplorable state education, and prohibition - perhaps their only means to earn a “legitimate” living…
If you don’t want to talk about the principle of self-ownership and the morality of non-agression, and particularly how that applies to war… If you want to skip (if the person you are conversing with is theologically-inclined) that most wars do not even meet the criteria for a “just war”… If you don’t want to discuss how war is definitionally destruction and the shifting of resources away from the productive activity of peaceful, consensual exchange… If you’d rather not get into how “war is the health of the state” and that it always serves as an excuse for greater state power over the liberties and freedoms of individuals… That, ultimately, a state defense apparatus isn’t even actually necessary…
If you really don’t want to get into the philosophical and practical details of the bipartisan folly that is our overlords’ imperialistic foreign policy when someone says “our soldiers are fighting to defend your freedom to talk sh*t about them,” then simply offer this retort:
It would be a grave insult, then, for me to not exercise that very freedom for which the military has so bravely sacrificed.
I’m in Ohio right now, and no one I’ve talked to so far has any idea who Nate Kelly is…
Kim misses your bedtime stories already.
Come on down…
“I think the argument against regulation is extremely hurt by the recent economic collapse.”
- Begs the question, why is it hurt by the economic collapse? That completely ignores all the regulations, that of which there are more than ever.
- Shouldn’t we listen to the only school of thought that predicted it as early as 2002? The Austrian School of Economics has a proper methodology which explains the business cycle. Manipulating the money supply and interest rates rejects all principles of a free-market.
- The argument isn’t against regulation per se, it’s against state regulation which embodies aggression (the initiation or threat of violence) and which doesn’t work, because state regulation must necessarily always create winners and losers. Big business loves regulation, it hinders competition & they’re often the ones helping craft the rules for the industry, they end up benefiting.
- Market regulations work… to solve the problem of “who watches the watchers?” is that everybody watches each other, via competition. You don’t then give someone a monopoly of ultimate decision making, including conflicts involving themselves and think that solves the problem - it only exacerbates it.
“Shows what greed can do to the rest of the country, in fact the whole world, when there is not some kind of regulation in place.”
- The state controls money, it’s one of the primary things they demand. To then lay the blame elsewhere is nonsensical.
- If humans need to be governed, then having humans as governors simply exacerbates the problem. It is a fatal contradiction. Whilst not a fan of [Milton] Friedman, the same point is made in video form here.
Havel’s life was more important, certainly. I’ve been quoting him all day. But Jong-Il’s death presents a significant glimmer of hope for millions of North Koreans.
It is absolutely fair to criticize Ron Paul for not being present for the NDAA vote after repeatedly and vociferously railing against it (not that his vote would have made a difference, unfortunately, with a final tally of 283-186). Members of Congress aren’t expected to be present for every vote, though that is their duty. The word is that he knew the votes weren’t there and decided to stay on the campaign trail with only two weeks to go before the Iowa caucus (so he can, eventually, veto bills like this). Bottom line: his position truly cannot be questioned (see here and here for his own words), he simply was not there.
Still, some disappointment and criticism is certainly deserved.
But of all those mocking Paul for not being present during the NDAA vote, how many will be voting for Obama who actually signed it into law?
I think you know the answer to that one…
The posts additionally tagged with ∆ denote my own thoughts.
Basically, in my opinion, they’ve got some appealing rhetoric and some of the right ideas on individual liberty and the market; but with support of the labor theory of value, belief in personal over private property, and aversion to all forms of hierarchy, they’ve probably got more in common with collectivism than individualism.
Wore my “End the Fed” shirt to the bank…
If your worldview requires you to see the relationship between the citizen and the state as that of a small domesticated animal and its master, then I can get why you would find it funny to mock the seeming ungratefulness and smug selfishness of us wards of our governmental superiors. Truly, I can almost understand why you would consider acquiescence to, reverence of, and thankfulness for the state and all it does to be virtues.