[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34316054]That basically leaves you with Ron Paul and... Ron Paul.[/QUOTE]
And quite a hard life for anyone on welfare, unemployment insurance, or anyone in need of federal aid to pay the outrageous university tuition.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34331548]is that even a legitimate argument? if you're gonna troll do it somewhere else.[/QUOTE]
how is that trolling?
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34331548]is that even a legitimate argument? if you're gonna troll do it somewhere else.[/QUOTE]
He is arguing that all the Republicans' policies, and especially those of Ron Paul, will heavily favor the rich white straight protestant males of the United States.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;34273978]I totally totally totally agree. Abolition of the state will take at least a 100 years. It's a generational thing. We need to drop the irrational, pathological compliance with state coercion (i.e. any coercion whatsoever) and the way to do that is to bring your children up to see how vile and evil it is. I'm not saying we should start a violent revolution: that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. We should merely condemn state coercion and spread the message (which is a rational, empirically justified one) to our peers. I don't think we should do anything as volatile as even refuse to pay our taxes because all that would achieve is getting us thrown in jail. The only way we can break out of the prisoners dilemma that is state coercion, is to have enough enlightened, rational people to become aware of the illegitimacy of state coercion. Until there's enough people, and this sort of global consciousness, condemnation is all we have. We we sure as hell ought to be condemning them.[/QUOTE]
i'm not following the hazy, global reformism you're talking about. you don't advocate violent revolution? from your post (to be honest, i'm pretty tired right now) it seems to me that you aren't talking about reforming capitalism within it's own pretend democracy; you seem to be inferring that there's some kind of mass intellectual rebirth following the spreading of your 'message', and everybody suddenly decides to do away with capitalism. any form of riot, rebellion or revolution, peaceful or not peaceful, violent or intellectual, is directly and brutally stymied by the machinery of the state (which seems to coincide with the "state coercion" you're talking about). just look at the Occupy protests in the event that they established a few 'solid demands', or any number of existing communes that the state has literally moved in on and destroyed with fucking tanks and soldiers.
the premise of this argument is that violent revolution is necessary - the idea that this is a moral transgression is intrinsically liberal, as is the idealist notion that society can immediately transcend it's barriers, going straight to an anarchist true democracy with or without private property. this is an argument that can't be contended; the prevalent liberal ideology is all the substantiation you need to follow this line of thought. let me substantiate this, in turn, with philosophy; the rationalism you're talking about in your posts in other threads, the individualism you discuss, the "I think, therefore I am," is part of the liberal ideology. there needs to be violent revolution, and there needs to be a vanguard party.
[editline]22nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=person11;34335057]He is arguing that all the Republicans' policies, and especially those of Ron Paul, will heavily favor the rich white straight protestant males of the United States.[/QUOTE]
inferring that it could ever be otherwise in the first world labour aristocracy
[QUOTE=Karlos;34335947]i'm not following the hazy, global reformism you're talking about. you don't advocate violent revolution? from your post (to be honest, i'm pretty tired right now) it seems to me that you aren't talking about reforming capitalism within it's own pretend democracy; you seem to be inferring that there's some kind of mass intellectual rebirth following the spreading of your 'message', and everybody suddenly decides to do away with capitalism. any form of riot, rebellion or revolution, peaceful or not peaceful, violent or intellectual, is directly and brutally stymied by the machinery of the state (which seems to coincide with the "state coercion" you're talking about). just look at the Occupy protests in the event that they established a few 'solid demands', or any number of existing communes that the state has literally moved in on and destroyed with fucking tanks and soldiers.
the premise of this argument is that violent revolution is necessary - the idea that this is a moral transgression is intrinsically liberal, as is the idealist notion that society can immediately transcend it's barriers, going straight to an anarchist true democracy with or without private property. this is an argument that can't be contended; the prevalent liberal ideology is all the substantiation you need to follow this line of thought. let me substantiate this, in turn, with philosophy; the rationalism you're talking about in your posts in other threads, the individualism you discuss, the "I think, therefore I am," is part of the liberal ideology. there needs to be violent revolution, and there needs to be a vanguard party.
[editline]22nd January 2012[/editline]
inferring that it could ever be otherwise in the first world labour aristocracy[/QUOTE]
It [I]could[/I] be otherwise, it is just not likely for now.
[editline]21st January 2012[/editline]
It would definitely be worse under Ron Paul.
[QUOTE=person11;34336500]It would definitely be worse under Ron Paul.[/QUOTE]
How so?
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34336850]How so?[/QUOTE]
He would exaggerate the privatization of basic services such as Healthcare and Education. Privatizing industries will always favor the rich while excluding the poor.
[QUOTE=person11;34337371]He would exaggerate the privatization of basic services such as Healthcare and Education. Privatizing industries will always favor the rich while excluding the poor.[/QUOTE]
considering the government has a monopoly on education and HMOs aren't anything close to free market (in fact its a government-sponsored monopoly on healthcare), people really don't have an element of choice or power in those areas today. now look at both of their horrible outcomes and tell me if its a coincidence that government management happens to fail so hard?
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34337565]considering the government has a monopoly on education and HMOs aren't anything close to free market (in fact its a government-sponsored monopoly on healthcare), people really don't have an element of choice or power in those areas today. now look at both of their horrible outcomes and tell me if its a coincidence that government management happens to fail so hard?[/QUOTE]
The only thing worse than government mismanagement is private efficiency.
[QUOTE=person11;34337887]The only thing worse than government mismanagement is private efficiency.[/QUOTE]
What. That doesn't even... You're saying that efficiency is a BAD thing?
[QUOTE=Karlos;34335947]i'm not following the hazy, global reformism you're talking about. you don't advocate violent revolution? from your post (to be honest, i'm pretty tired right now) it seems to me that you aren't talking about reforming capitalism within it's own pretend democracy; you seem to be inferring that there's some kind of mass intellectual rebirth following the spreading of your 'message', and everybody suddenly decides to do away with capitalism. any form of riot, rebellion or revolution, peaceful or not peaceful, violent or intellectual, is directly and brutally stymied by the machinery of the state (which seems to coincide with the "state coercion" you're talking about). just look at the Occupy protests in the event that they established a few 'solid demands', or any number of existing communes that the state has literally moved in on and destroyed with fucking tanks and soldiers.
the premise of this argument is that violent revolution is necessary - the idea that this is a moral transgression is intrinsically liberal, as is the idealist notion that society can immediately transcend it's barriers, going straight to an anarchist true democracy with or without private property. this is an argument that can't be contended; the prevalent liberal ideology is all the substantiation you need to follow this line of thought. let me substantiate this, in turn, with philosophy; the rationalism you're talking about in your posts in other threads, the individualism you discuss, the "I think, therefore I am," is part of the liberal ideology. there needs to be violent revolution, and there needs to be a vanguard party.
[editline]22nd January 2012[/editline]
inferring that it could ever be otherwise in the first world labour aristocracy[/QUOTE]
I don't agree there has to be a violent revolution. The problem - as I see it - is that people aren't aware of their individual political power (I say this because society is horizontal: the hierarchical structure of the state is illusionary because the state is only contingent on mass support (or at least compliance) of the people). I believe the most effective way of changing society will be through intellectual awakening, not coercion. I believe such an intellectual revolution will take at least 100-150 years, because it's a generational thing. Not to say that people can't change their mind throughout their lives, but society is by and large indoctrinated into being this submissive wage labourer, and I think this indoctrination begins at a very early age. It starts with the parents and the teachers; we're taught to respect authority figures and to follow their rules or expect punishment. Children need to be taught moral integrity.
Now don't get me wrong, I'd basically identify with myself as a moral nihilist. But one thing I [i]won't[/i] stand for is inconsistent flaunting of morals. The only moral with the time of day is the non-aggression principle, and parents and teachers try to instill it in us right from the start. We're told not to steal the little kid's lunch money but then when we leave school we're told to give our lunch money to the state or the police will throw us in jail. It doesn't even matter that the state supposedly knows what's best for us and uses my money accordingly. Using that argument is like saying it's morally acceptable to kidnap a fat guy so we can feed him healthier food and expect him to pay us for it.
We need to teach children to understand how inconsistent state coercion is with our most basic moral standard. Society needs to realise how repugnant the state is and then appreciate the fact that society is horizontal, then when this rational awakening occurs we'll easily transition into a free society of voluntary interaction.
The vanguard party sounds a lot like kidnapping the fat guy and stealing his money to pay for healthier food. Revolutions like this are just premature, damaging and betray the moral principles they aim to follow.
[QUOTE=person11;34337887]The only thing worse than government mismanagement is private efficiency.[/QUOTE]
but thats the problem, government always mismanages because its not liable for anything it does wrong.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34342159]but thats the problem, government always mismanages because its not liable for anything it does wrong.[/QUOTE]
yes it is
and tell that to the dozens of UHC programs around the world that are better than ours lmao
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34342159]but thats the problem, government always mismanages because its not liable for anything it does wrong.[/QUOTE]
Government is liable, but the bureaucracy behind government isn't. That's the problem. We have the potential for a really great system in government, but it gets mucked up in bureaucratics.
Building a completely private industry and outsourcing the government is a bad idea. If you give everything to corporations, they'll abuse the system to make money. In effect, rich white men alone will profit through the brutal efficiency of private industry. Poorer people lose out because they can't keep up with payments.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34346520]Government is liable, but the bureaucracy behind government isn't. That's the problem. We have the potential for a really great system in government, but it gets mucked up in bureaucratics.
Building a completely private industry and outsourcing the government is a bad idea. If you give everything to corporations, they'll abuse the system to make money. In effect, rich white men alone will profit through the brutal efficiency of private industry. Poorer people lose out because they can't keep up with payments.[/QUOTE]
Thank you
[editline]22nd January 2012[/editline]
What I meant to say before was that I'd rather have an inefficient Government providing essential services than private corporations who will do so efficiently for the benefit of rich white men.
[QUOTE=person11;34346547]What I meant to say before was that I'd rather have an inefficient Government providing essential services than private corporations who will do so efficiently for the benefit of rich white men.[/QUOTE]
Although, I guess this presents a new question. Is efficiency bad in government? It would seem to me that what we should have is an efficient government that provides services to all, but would that efficiency be bad for the general good?
I think that the issue is the privatization of the industries. Privatized health care will be greedy regardless of its efficiency, I think.
[QUOTE=SystemGS;34346794]Although, I guess this presents a new question. Is efficiency bad in government? It would seem to me that what we should have is an efficient government that provides services to all, but would that efficiency be bad for the general good?
I think that the issue is the privatization of the industries. Privatized health care will be greedy regardless of its efficiency, I think.[/QUOTE]
I'd love a more efficient Government, I just do not think it is possible, unless you take Democracy out of the picture. It is also generally true that private corporations will always be as efficient as possible in order to compete.
But, knowing this, I would rather hand Healthcare to the government than hand it to private corporations.
Corporations are designed to make as much money as possible. Our government is designed to satisfy the people as well as possible so that the leaders get reelected, usually.
[QUOTE=person11;34347367]I'd love a more efficient Government, I just do not think it is possible, unless you take Democracy out of the picture. It is also generally true that private corporations will always be as efficient as possible in order to compete.
But, knowing this, I would rather hand Healthcare to the government than hand it to private corporations.
Corporations are designed to make as much money as possible. Our government is designed to satisfy the people as well as possible so that the leaders get reelected, usually.[/QUOTE]
Entirely true. In all honesty, I think that corporations should stay away from government. In rare cases do they actually help. I don't think I enjoy the extremely capitalist stance, simply because it promotes the trampling of the weak. Sometimes, the weak just need to be helped.
[QUOTE=person11;34347367]I'd love a more efficient Government, I just do not think it is possible, unless you take Democracy out of the picture. It is also generally true that private corporations will always be as efficient as possible in order to compete.
But, knowing this, I would rather hand Healthcare to the government than hand it to private corporations.
Corporations are designed to make as much money as possible. Our government is designed to satisfy the people as well as possible so that the leaders get reelected, usually.[/QUOTE]
No, government officials don't care. They just want to be reelected.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34348259]No, government officials don't care. They just want to be reelected.[/QUOTE]
They care about getting elected enough for their institutions to be all inclusive and do a decent job.
The Post Office sucks to go to, so does the DMV, you have to wait in line and fill out shitty forms and it sucks. But it works in the end, and it includes everyone.
A corporation would surely do a better job than the Post Office or the DMV, but would raise prices and exclude those who cannot afford the services.
[QUOTE=person11;34348376]They care about getting elected enough for their institutions to be all inclusive and do a decent job.
The Post Office sucks to go to, so does the DMV, you have to wait in line and fill out shitty forms and it sucks. But it works in the end, and it includes everyone.
A corporation would surely do a better job than the Post Office or the DMV, but would raise prices and exclude those who cannot afford the services.[/QUOTE]
They're called UPS and FedEx. They both do a better job and the ONLY reason USPS is cheaper is because it's subsidized.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34348719]They're called UPS and FedEx. They both do a better job and the ONLY reason USPS is cheaper is because it's subsidized.[/QUOTE]
Both more expensive, therefore exclusive
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;34348719]They're called UPS and FedEx. They both do a better job and the ONLY reason USPS is cheaper is because it's subsidized.[/QUOTE]
And it's subsidized for a reason. The government is providing mail service to people who need it at a relatively cheap cost. UPS and FedEx are competitors, which happens in a capitalist market. However, they [I]will[/I] run prices up to make a profit, which is exemplified in their prices currently.
Government subsidies make a lot of things cheap for the general consumer. If you were poor, you'd want to keep it that way. If you were rich, you wouldn't have to mind because you could either use that service or pay for a slightly faster service for more money. However, at the end of the day, the governmental system works, and that's all that matters.
[QUOTE=person11;34337371]He would exaggerate the privatization of basic services such as Healthcare and Education. Privatizing industries will always favor the rich while excluding the poor.[/QUOTE]
How come people always keep saying this, yet it's the white rich people who hate Ron Paul the most. If filthy rich corporations loved Libertarianism so much, how come they never lobby for less regulations and instead want to implement laws and use the government to destroy competition and protect their finances? If it was true that Ron Paul's policies would favor the rich, he would have been President back when he was running in 1988. If anyone remembers, the 80's was totally full of corruption, money and greed and people back then were cynical about the economy. I mean just look at the top campaign donors for Obama and Romney: Goldman Sachs. Then look at Ron Paul's top campaign donors: US Army, US Navy, US Airforce. You must be an idiot if you can't see that the mainstream candidates are bought out.
Source: opensecrets.org, I suggest everyone to check out this site and see who's contributing to whose campaigns. Some of the stuff is pretty terrifying.
And from a Washington Post article keeping track the number of billionaires who have donated to a campaign:
[IMG]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2758/wbillionaires.jpg[/IMG]
At least the rich people are smart enough to recognize that they sure won't benefit from Ron Paul's policies.
vermin supreme is one of the top 10 realist dudes on earth
this dude is unreal rofl fuk the elections tbh
[QUOTE=GoodStuff;34360934]How come people always keep saying this, yet it's the white rich people who hate Ron Paul the most. If filthy rich corporations loved Libertarianism so much, how come they never lobby for less regulations and instead want to implement laws and use the government to destroy competition and protect their finances? If it was true that Ron Paul's policies would favor the rich, he would have been President back when he was running in 1988. If anyone remembers, the 80's was totally full of corruption, money and greed and people back then were cynical about the economy. I mean just look at the top campaign donors for Obama and Romney: Goldman Sachs. Then look at Ron Paul's top campaign donors: US Army, US Navy, US Airforce. You must be an idiot if you can't see that the mainstream candidates are bought out.
Source: opensecrets.org, I suggest everyone to check out this site and see who's contributing to whose campaigns. Some of the stuff is pretty terrifying.
And from a Washington Post article keeping track the number of billionaires who have donated to a campaign:
[IMG]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2758/wbillionaires.jpg[/IMG]
At least the rich people are smart enough to recognize that they sure won't benefit from Ron Paul's policies.[/QUOTE]
They don't donate to Paul because they know he won't win, and that no amount of money would get him teh support of 51% of the population.
Rick Perry is homophobic, owns a ranch called "Nigger Creek"
Newt Gingrich is homophobic, racist (Stated that blacks should stop living off of foodstamps)
All the rest have shown this to be true.
Yeah, republican party thumbs down.
[QUOTE=person11;34365337]They don't donate to Paul because they know he won't win, and that no amount of money would get him teh support of 51% of the population.[/QUOTE]
yet they donated to rick perry even though it was obvious hes too much of a fucking retard to hold his own?
People are voting for Gingrich based on his fiery attitude and angry straightforward campaign. Who wants a fiery, angry, president? No one. I would vote Mitt over Obama, but DEFINITELY Obama over Newt.
Let's not forget Gingrich's own party wanted him out of the house, and he got the ethics violation. Oh, and if you care about personal life stuff, the whole cheating on 2 wives things.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34365700]yet they donated to rick perry even though it was obvious hes too much of a fucking retard to hold his own?[/QUOTE]
People thought that Perry had a chance at the nomination for a while
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.