Ron Paul is a right wing crazy ass
Forums › General Discussion › Ron Paul is a right wing crazy ass-
Λdོdོi wrote:
Yeah, but I'm an atheist that's pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage rights and pro-drug legalization. I believe in international humanitarianism, free trade, and on and on and on. Because I think federal government is too big I'm a wing nut? I don't get the connection.Brown🎵Note wrote:
Brown, obviously because you mostly spew right-winged propoganda as fact. You sound like almost every conservative I know. Same quotes and all. You don't project yourself as anything else.Excuse me, just a moment. When did I ever say right was good? If I did, I apologize. I do find it very curious that you guys keep calling me a right winger, reactionary, blah, blah, blah... Because all you know is left vs.right in American politics, and if I don't like big government, I have to be a George Bush Jr. fan. Sorry, but that's just not how it is.
-
Λdོdོi wrote:
The problem with Rand's utopia is that it requires morality and strong social structure to work. We are losing that so rapidly.... It's doomed. In fact, our nation is built on morality, and freedoms provided by a higher power. That's going away. So will you substitute government for God? It looks that way.I'm not going to keep arguing with you on this one since I know you are just doing it for argument's sake. Don's handling it well. I would like to say as with Marxism looking good on paper, that goes for every extreme philosophy. Don't you agree? Wouldn't you say the same about Rand's Objectivism?
-
I know what it is that makes me a right-winger to you guys. It's my belief that we should all be equal under the law. That the government can't discriminate. Which to me means many things, one of which is that it is decidedly unfair to tax people at varying rates. A flat tax means everyone pays $5000. A progressive tax means everyone pays 18% (or whatever) A mob rule democracy tax means that the rich must pay a higher rate, because it isn't fair that they should be so rich while others aren't. I believe we all have the opportunity to make it big. It shouldn't be punished. It should be applauded, encouraged, and inspiring. It's good for the country, good for our treasury, and good for the economy it creates. It's good for getting people off their asses, and into school.
-
If I happen to make it really big, I want to use my money to produce, to inspire, and to enjoy. Look at Bill Gates. What does he need his foundation for? Just give it all to the treasury and let the politicians write checks for what they want. Yeah. Smart.
-
✯МяΛиоиγмоυs✯ wrote:
If you're not interested in politics, then why do you click on an obviously political thread? It's ridiculous that you want to control what people want to discuss.My question is: Is there really a need for so many political posts? Why don't you just take it to palringo or something
-
DonKaeso wrote:
Well you reinforced my point wonderfully! I'm happy with a democratic republic. The only thing that prevents it from working is greed. That's something that can't be changed by a system. That must be changed by an evolution in consciousness.JoJo D. wrote:
The orweillian conspiracy is to make you into a slave, giving you 1$ wage an hour will assure that. You probably dont even care, or realize that Orwell was a communist.Ron Paul is the answer! We're arguing about minimum wage while our freedom is trampled! We should all look at the big picture! If you can't see the Orwellian nightmare all around us, then your either willfully ignorant or clueless! FREEDOM IS NOT FREE!!
-
JoJo D. wrote: Well you reinforced my point wonderfully! I'm happy with a democratic republic. The only thing that prevents it from working is greed. That's something that can't be changed by a system. That must be changed by an evolution in consciousness.
Actually, it was "designed" to operate with greed. Just like our federal government was designed to operate with self-interested politicians. Somebody thought that since that's how people are, we better find ways to balance it for the good of the general public. Those somebodys used checks and balances to accomplish this, and rely on the "invisible hand" to regulate market forces. All people want to maximize profit. When competition is healthy, greed produces quality products at affordable prices. Greed balances wages on an open employment market. Greed is natural, and expected. It's no doubt a vice... But to eliminate it is to exert totalitarian force on the people. -
So yes, you are correct about the system being unable to make people virtuous... I doubt it will ever evolve out of us. That would require the elimination of self preservation. For evolution, that's a no-no. So for most of the 1700's newly created coffee houses in Europe had lots of great thinkers busy wondering how to make vice work. I marvel at the answer. Here we are.
-
Back here again at tax fairness, eh? Neither of those are progressive, one's a flat fee and the other is a regressive tax. Either way, they ignore that those who "made it big" did not do so in a vacuum. They may have employed an educated workforce, or placed an undue burden on public infrastructure, or the courts or law enforcement, or enjoyed military protection of their assets overseas. Successful people and corporations use these commons that we and our parents all paid for to succeed. Should I, as an individual, be expected to invest equally in the commons which I rarely use, as someone who excessively burdens the commons for their own personal profit?
-
And, no like I said, it's the condescending or pompous tone you use that labels you conservative. That and the brow-beating. It's how you speak to people that don't have the exact same ideas as you do. It's the mainstream, conservative way. You know damn well I didn't call you a right wing nut. ;)
-
Rand was an atheist and believed that selfishness was a virtue. When asked if she believed in an afterlife in an interview, she said "Who cares? When I die, the world will end." In her early writing, she called an infamous child kidnapper and murderer a "superman" who embodied her vision of objectivism. Morality and strong social structure seem to have been the last thing on her mind. Good fiction novels though.
-
Well, I'd say that about sums up the fact that your point of view is not mine. And your way of divining who believes what is unique in my view. You may call those tax structures anything you like... But only the first 2 are non-discriminatory. And whatever do you mean rich people necessarily put a larger burden on infrastructure? Even so THEY PAY MORE, even if it's the same rate, which it isn't.
-
I'm terribly sorry, but I see the same attitude on the other side. Snarky, know-it-all 22 year-olds calling me a misinformed jackass because I think socialism is contrary to individual liberty. (Which it is!) Democrats have the market cornered on the: "I'm better than you; you need me to take care of you against evil corporations and your own stupidity!" Give me a break!
-
Rand can climb a tree for all I care. And that other nobody you accused me of being misled by. I don't read much that wasn't written a long time ago. Never read her or him. I read Montesquieu, Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, and for my "Coulter" fix, I read Von Mises.
The age of enlightenment to me beats the crap out of the socialist idiots that followed...Don't get me wrong...They make a fine revolt out of class struggle...But too many people die, and too many people have to be put in their appropriate categories...And freedom, that all important idea, is not trivial to me.
-
Brown🎵Note wrote:
My bad, I could have sworn you also referred to yourself as an objectivist at some point. And, sure, I also read a lot of western philosophy myself. Most of which is liberal thought.Rand can climb a tree for all I care. And that other nobody you accused me of being misled by. I don't read much that wasn't written a long time ago. Never read her or him. I read Montesquieu, Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, and for my "Coulter" fix, I read Von Mises.
The age of enlightenment to me beats the crap out of the socialist idiots that followed...Don't get me wrong...They make a fine revolt out of class struggle...But too many people die, and too many people have to be put in their appropriate categories...And freedom, that all important idea, is not trivial to me.
-
Haha okay. Well you proved yourself on this thread to be the type to throw moron around any chance given. Imo, thats identical to using the word retard. Anything that derogatory is not a standard or accepted debate technique. You did that. I did not just pull it out of my ass.
Also, fascism is contrary to individual liberty. Just saying. And this country is so much more down that road than it is the communist one. Here's another funny quote.
"When fascism comes to American, it'll be carrying a bible and wrapped in a flag. "
-
To address the current topic:
I never said that the wealthy necessarily put a greater burden on our infrastructure. We don't tax wealth unless it changes hands. I was speaking more to how wealth is accumulated using the commons we all invest in. And yes, it's a disproportionate burden and sometimes exponentially greater than that of an individual working for a paycheck. Your theoretical world of self-made men and individual responsibility should take all this into account to be taken seriously as a realistic alternative. Every corporation should fully reimburse the school for the costs of educating it's workforce. It should reimburse the city for the costs of extra traffic congestion and higher crime in the area. It should reimburse the public for every environmental impact and citizens directly for driving up the cost of energy, water, etc. It should reimburse the military for protecting it's overseas manufacturing. Currently corporations do none of that. Instead they pay taxes. -
Λdོdོi wrote: My bad, I could have sworn you also referred to yourself as an objectivist at some point. And, sure, I also read a lot of western philosophy myself. Most of which is liberal thought.
Remember the term "liberal" has changed meanings recently. It's one of the more confusing things about reading Mises. Libertarian/Conservative individuals were called "Liberals". The opposite was called "collectivist."
It's not mostly collectivist thought.
-
Λdོdོi wrote:
Hey, the title of this thread set the tone, not I.Haha okay. Well you proved yourself on this thread to be the type to throw moron around any chance given. Imo, thats identical to using the word retard. Anything that derogatory is not a standard or accepted debate technique. You did that. I did not just pull it out of my ass.
Also, fascism is contrary to individual liberty. Just saying. And this country is so much more down that road than it is the communist one. Here's another funny quote.
"When fascism comes to American, it'll be carrying a bible and wrapped in a flag. "
(But insults are a key to my conversations, true. Some people find it humorous, which is why I do it. I'm not alone in this technique. "Pundits" on all sides use it regularly.)
-
I've said this before... Communism and facsism are not necessarily opposites on the totalitarian/anarchist scale. Both are opposite spectrum from my point of view.
-
Λdོdོi wrote:
I disagree fundamentally with this notion. Government is bound to provide services by its charter, and funds itself as needed through taxes and fees. I agree this is the way it is, but I disagree that there is any moral reason to track usage and tax accordingly, unless it's built in, such as gasoline taxes funding road construction.To address the current topic:
I never said that the wealthy necessarily put a greater burden .......Currently corporations do none of that. Instead they pay taxes.By your logic, I shouldn't pay taxes that go into a playground I don't use.
Government provides services to all, indescriminately, and funds them indescriminately, unless otherwise stipulated. This is how it is and should be, in my opinion.
The Constitution defines the entirety of federal government, and it mentions no such thing.
-
Also by your logic, wouldn't the "commons" GDP be a debt of society to the producers?
It benefits society... Why doesn't society owe them for the additional currency created, jobs created, product provided...
It's just kind of breaks down when it goes both ways. Zero sum.
-
Also calling someone an "Idiot", "Moron", "imbecil", etc. is in no fashion whatsoever the same as using "retard" on a non-mentally handicapped individual. There are no longer any secondary victims because the label is no longer used.
(it used to be a student grading scale)
"I'm an idiot, and I resent you degrading that non-idiot by comparing him to me."
Give me a break. That's a low blow, and completely unfounded.
-
You misread me. I was merely giving examples of the higher burdens that corporations and those who share their profits place on the commons that justify progressive taxation. In a truly free market, free of big government "interference", corporations would have to absorb all these hidden costs themselves and then some. The truth is, capitalists rely on socialist public investment and vice versa. I believe that progressive taxation reflects this symbiotic relationship between the government and the private sector rather than an adversarial one in which they privatize gains and socialize expenses.
-
Don't get me wrong, Brown. You know I'm fond of you. I also find you very funny. Sometimes you can be mean though. Not necessarily to me. It's just hard to watch sometimes.
-
Why don't we get down to brass tacks. What specific progressive policies from the last 30 years do you see as taking us down "the road to socialism", defined as total state control of the means of production? I'll do the same, but instead focus on specific policies regarding our move toward fascism, defined as total corporate control of the state.
-
I feel as if reading this thread informs me a lot more about politics than msnbc, fox or other political networks do and for that my good gentlemen I applaud you! I prefer Lockes philosophy personally, yes I read it for school.
-
badbean wrote:
That's the aim in the end I believe. And I'm a girl. 😁I feel as if reading this thread informs me a lot more about politics than msnbc, fox or other political networks do and for that my good gentlemen I applaud you! I prefer Lockes philosophy personally, yes I read it for school.
-
I find this thread fascinating. I always enjoy a good, informative debate.
-
There are obviously some very knowledgable people debating in this thread, but it really degrades the arguement, and the debater, when it descends into "you're a moron", "no you're a moron"', "but you're a bigger moron". Please attack the idea, not the person, then we can all enjoy and learn something from the thread.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC