Ron Paul: Crazy person?... or craziest person?
 

A governmentless, corporation dominated Christian theocracy shut off from the outside world except for free trade? What could go wrong?

I dunno if he's running again in 2012, but just in case I say we do something right now to kill anyone that could potentially vote for him.

I don't think a Christian theocracy can be possible without a government...

He is a lunatic in that he strictly adheres to the constitution as if it were from heaven. I don't think his stance on free market economics or a limited government can be considered lunacy. I mean, it is just as much of a crazy idea, if not less, as paying for welfare systems we cannot afford.

Ultimately, the duty ethics which you want everybody to live by are just as much of a nuance as the religious people though. They tell you believe in God. You tell other people that they should live self-sacrificially.

I was going to vote for him.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1130/...674650d2b4.jpg

Wrong.

If there's no government, people are gonna start depending on some other kind of governing body. Religion and corporations would have no restraints, they could pretty much have full reign over anything.

He doesn't believe in a limited government, he believes in no government, I'm sorry, anyone who wants to get rid of the CIA and FBI and withdraw from the UN is f*cking insane.

He wants a non interventionist US, at the same time he doesn't mind if we remain free trade dependent and despite his reputation as a "liberal conservative" he's far from it, he's very anti seperation of church and state and xenophobic. So yeah, to hell with huminatarian causes, we only care about little brown people if they make our products.

So I think he really is the "true" conservative presidential candidate. He thinks government's only function is national security (and what a sh*tty one we'd have without the CIA I might add) and enforcing a few laws based on Christian doctrine, and that's it, everything else is "up to the states". :laughing:

I don't know where you've been getting your information from, but I was watching him pretty closely in 2007-2008. Where is this "Christian Theocracy" theory coming from? I've never seen anything remotely close to that in his campaign outline. From what I gathered in getting involved with his campaign, these were the fundamentals of his plan: Abolition of the IRS, CIA and Free Trade Organizations that take the work out of the country, Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, Utilizing the military to guard our borders more closely, and withdrawal from the World Central Bank.

I don't understand how you get the idea that he was trying to create a Theocracy out of the United States government. A prime example is his stance on abortion. Ron Paul, the person, is against abortion. However, he recognizes that people have the choice of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and its not up to the government to tell people what they can do with their bodies.

He's just a guy that was trying to make the government realize its boundaries. If that makes him crazy, then what is sane?

Boundries? He thinks the government has no function at all, that's a pretty big difference.

Also he thinks the abortion/*** rights issues should be left up to the states, but like I said he's also very anti seperation of church and state so he has a pretty clear Christian agenda.

And he does seem to get a surprising amount of support from religious crazies because they love the idea of a nation where government doesn't tread on religion at all.

Boobs, you found something we agree on. Congratulations. Ron Paul is a total nut, and government is necessary to see that the infringement of rights is at least halfway regulated.

I feel rumbling beneath my feet....

If government didn't have control, corporations and religion would, and I'm sorry if I'm not one of the people who thinks that would be a wonderful utopia.

I am pretty sure he believes that the government does have a function. The function: to protect individual rights.

No, I am not. If you look at the definition of theocracy, it necessitates a government for a religion to rule over. If there is no government, there is no theocracy.

The government has no restraints, yet we still manage to live under it without being oppressed. There is, in fact, a restraint. It is the body the government rules, or the people. If a corporation did something the people really didn't like, the people could rebel and violence and chaos would control. Don't mistake me for believing this is right.

Anyone who is remotely intellectual and pays attention to right-politics would know that he is more conservatives than the conservatives. I think he even said this all the time during his campaign. He wants to restore the country back to the state it had at the time of the constitution, minus the flaws like slavery.

Secondly, reading your posts is like watching a liberal faux news. You never give me any quotes or such to back up your ridiculous statements. You might as well say we never landed on the moon. You will get just as much recognition at this point. I don't ask for quotes unless you go out and call some one "xenophobic."

Secondly:

Then:

It is all propaganda to me, when I read your posts.

That is absolutely right. We don't care about people unless they are a value to us. Thanks for stating the obvious and then manipulating it so that you make a group of people look "extra greedy." Humanitarianism is a stain on humanity, just like all of the duty ethics you propose. You voluntarilly chain yourself to others and expect me to do the same with my life. You recognize the physical realm, but the spiritual (not religious) realm means nothing. You propose a system where people are paid to survive because that is what makes people happy. A little more money to pay for that kids surgery, then he'll be closer to happiness. However, when it comes to what actually makes people happy, the self-esteem, you disregard it as if it is non-existent. Having money is a virtue to you. Having too much, a vice. Earning that money, an action that does not amount to anything. I judge that solely on your political stance, and the fact that you are so cynical (in the modern sense) when it comes to business men. You lump them all together and view them as people who tie others to machines to work long hours. However, you forget to mention the fact that you wish to tie them up to their machine too. Is their no double standard?

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

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. :laughing:

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ayn Rand is a fucking awful philosopher and an even worse writer.

Elaborate so that I might be able to give you some credit. Otherwise, you seem to be like the other million critics who critiqued her books without having read them nor understood them.

Exactly. That is the problem. It is just as stupid as nihilism. You never get anywhere with that idea. One has to believe in some sort of morality. One lives by a morality whether he wants to or not. He may constantly rebel against his supposed morality, but that only creates a new one. A morality is a set of rules to achieve a goal that one sets for oneself with his own reason. That is morality in its true sense. Most philosophers hold that one should run away from reality and admit there is no objective morality. However, then they hold that there is no such thing as the objective world. They hold that there is no defined right or wrong way to go through with an action. There most certainly is if one has a goal and one can judge it based on what is more rational to achieve his own interests.

You just choose to not think about the question of morality when you say, "Nope, there isn't a right or wrong in this situation." That is cowardly and you are letting reality dominate you. It is just as dumb as determinism in the sense that it forfeits one's life to reality.

Having a raison d'etre does not make you a moral being. This definition is beyond atrocious because it makes that assumption. One can have no drive and still be a moral person.

This is why I hate Rand's philosophy. It tosses out philosophy based on reality and logic in favor of selfish gain. In my mind what I gain from reality is far more important and precious than anything I could get out of denying it for selfish goals. The ideaology doesn't care about what actually is as long is it makes you feel good.

^This is the problem with the internet, you read of bunch of out of context bullet points some true and some not all misrepresentations of how the man thinks, never listen to him or read his thoughts expansively and then assume you have an idea of what he's about.

If you believe everything you claim about Dr. Paul is as cut and dry as you put it there you're 10x as nuts a you accuse him of being.

You act as though "millions of deaths" is what one should be afraid of. If people sign up for the military, they are choosing to fight. There goes a piece of those "millions of deaths." Next we have the government that initiated force on us. Are you telling me that it would be smart to let them use force on us as if it was nothing? Where the hell is the logic in that? The only smart thing to do is use force back. When I mean use force, I don't mean that we should be playing "find the bad guys." I mean that those who seem to support that government should go down with it. America is too nice when it comes to war and that is where the casualties come from on our side. We should be shooting those who are an enemy in war, and that includes the civilians who pose a threat. The reason wars take to long is we try to be as careful as we can, thereby avoiding the fact that war is war and the enemy needs to be completely destroyed.

The end of minimum wage is good. The end of government guaranteed sanitary conditions in the workplace is good. The end of the suppression of child labor is great. The end of government hand-outs based upon health needs is excellent. I see no problem here.

Please, do explain how one can have a morality without a goal. Just one example and I will be happy. Also, expect me to find the goal that you will probably fail to mention.

I think that you basically just said, "What I want from reality is good, but it is also stupid because it isn't as great as what I want from reality."

What actually is? What is the one thing that will induce pleasure and pain in your life? Yourself.

Rand's philosophy is the ideal for living and enjoying this reality. That is because it allows man to like living, unlike the popular philosophies of this time. It is also based in logic in that she views that man's mind is the key to unlocking reality. As she says, "A=A." This represents that man can know what is beyond him in this objective reality. You are the one who claims that man cannot know parts of reality and that is infringing on this base point of logic. You say that an objective morality is not able to be found. That is saying that logic does not work in the case of morality. That is highly illogical because you deny logic's value in that sentence.

Secondly, you have no reason to believe that your selfish goals are wrong. Give me a good reason why one should believe such a thing.

You do not know very much about war, do you?

I do. I know that you all say that the wars create new enemies and such, but that is because the way the US approaches war is too humanitarian-influenced. The point is to reduce the threat to where it doesn't become much of a threat anymore. I guess wording it as "completely destroyed" was not very good, but that is what I mean.

I don't believe in bombing the hell out of every country in the world. I just think that countries which are threatening us and using force on us should have no mercy from us.

Your one-liners are greatly appreciated though. They tell me just how smart you are because the argument from intimidation is the best argument, isn't it?

what the **** country has threatened us or used force on us since pearl harbor? and if i recall correctly our response was to bomb the hell out of them.

No, I'd be glad to have this discussion with you because you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about on this one. It just doesn't take paragraphs and paragraphs to counter your claim, is all. The purpose of war is to achieve a political objective, it is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself. Wars of attrition (what you're suggesting) are wasteful, unnecessarily violent and generally ineffective. Those in command of the military know this, and that is why they don't engage in wars of attrition. You are playing armchair general and exposing a complete naivety to the purpose of war and the ways they should be effectively fought. Completely destroying your enemy does not end a war, achieving the political objective you sought to achieve in the first place, does. The problem with the current war is that there was never a decisive political objective and the war is essentially endless. My comment was directed at your assumption that destroying the enemy is an inherent objective of war--it isn't. That is an immature and naive understanding of the institution and it has caused countless problems for the United States both now and in the past. The United States decimated the Viet-Cong during the Vietnam war, but the North Vietnamese won that war because they achieved their political goals. It has nothing to do with destroying your enemy.

this has probably never been the reason the United States went to war.

This thread is about Ron Paul, lets get it on track or shift the discussion to the appropriate thread.

This is the track the thread has taken, so it's right on track I would say. What does right-track think?

I am arguing that the wars we have fought since then have been just. I am just saying that in the wars the US does fight, we aren't doing it right. We aren't doing it to protect ourselves. We are doing it so that we can set up a new government or protect another country which our government has no responsibility for.

I am suggesting that the only goal of any just war is self-defense. Therefore, eliminating the threat is what should be done. The Vietnam war was for a completely different purpose and was a waste of time. That is a bad example.

Well then you're just a hopeless idealist and equally unqualified to comment on how our generals should be fighting this war. This fight is existential for the insurgency, not us, therefore we can never win. It's a simple as that.

Also, as an aside, was the American Revolution not a just war?

And the Vietnam war is not a bad example, considering the circumstances are more or less identical and even George Bush has admitted as such. Way to sidestep the larger point, though.

I do.

Someone who has no intent of putting effort into anything can still discern right from wrong.

I'm not sure how to reply to this because I don't even know how you came to that conclusion from reading what I posted.

That which actually exists.
This is a fairly unconnected thought it seems. If you're saying morality is based on reality and reality is where happiness is derived from than you're a hypocrite. You harped on about how nihilism is hopeless and such a thought process is nihilism.

On the other hand, if you're saying happiness is derived from self than duh. Of course happiness is derived from chemical reactions in your brain. However, doing whatever makes you happy is not always ethical.

I have three problems with this. One, you're denying that happiness can be derived from other philosophies which is certainly not true. Two, you're saying Rand's philosophy allows for happiness, which may or may not be true in some cases; personally I find it depressing. Three, you're saying that happiness is more important than what really is, therefor Rand's philosophy is better. That is pretty nihilistic thinking.
How are you defining beyond? You either made the most obvious statement ever or made an obviously false statement.
When did I say this?
Nope, I'm saying that it hasn't been found yet.
How so? If morality is based on logic and some people think more logically than others than some people will derive different morality. It seems that your argument would support subjective morality, not go against it.

I agree. The question isn't if they're right or wrong on a moral level, but if they can be obtained ethically.

I don't know what's going on but Ron Paul has no heart, only a Rand-shaped stone that pumps blood.

'sup ethan.

nm u

maxin and relaxin, you know. how was cali livin?