JasonC SBB

I agree - and the main good that will come out of his campaign no matter how far he gets, is for people to realize that STATISM BAD, LIBERTY GOOD.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I'm going to start small here while I try to catch up to the politics board.

You mean authoritarianism, correct? Statism has at best a coincidental connection to liberty.

Incidentally, what made you quote Animal Farm of all things? Are you trying to mock binary thinking (and implicitly the hypocrisy between modern political ideologies, "liberty" and "statism") , or are you seriously quoting an Orwellian work that spoke against authoritarianism and binary thinking to try to reinforce binary thinking?

^Motherfucking this. Paul has some ABSOLUTELY BATSHIT NUTJOB CRAZY ideas. But Congress won't let him pass them - on the other hand, he'll be able to force Congress to give a middle-of-the-road compromise that is what we want and need right now. And, frankly, if even his nuttiest and craziest ideas are passed - they err on the side of the citizen, not of the corporation or state.

JasonC SBB

STATISM is the belief that the state or the "common good" supercedes the individual. Another term for it is COLLECTIVISM. Statists want to impose their will on YOU via gov't. Both "conservatives" and "liberals" are Statist. They just differ in what things they want to impose on you. "Liberals" want to take your money and re-distribute it, "Conservatives" want to take your money and run an empire. Social conservatives want to prevent you from behaving in certain ways (what you put in your body or involving others with mutual consent).

Examples of Collectivist/Statist gov't systems:
- communism
- socialism
- fascism
- authoritarianism
- autocracy
- monarchy
- democracy (especially mass or pure democracies)

The opposite of collectivism is CLASSICAL LIBERALISM (aka libertarianism) or INDIVIDUALISM. The individual cannot be sacrificed for the common good.

Here's a short video explaining Classical Liberalism:


You think that only because you don't understand the underlying principles. "Allegory of the Caves" and all that. Paul is pretty hardcore Minarchist/Libertarian (aka "Natural Rights Libertarians"). This is the position of the Founding Fathers/Constitution.

There are harder core libertarians, and they are called "AnarchoCapitalists", "Consequentialist Libertarians", and "Agorists". They believe that monopoly gov't (including Minarchy) is evil and market based governmental services is superior. This is a whole 'nother topic.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

No. What you describe is statism as used in the form of right-wing authoritarianism. You are playing fast and loose with some terms (Edit) Although you are notably correct in a general sense about statism, you are refusing to define it correctly and in a form not supporting your argument (/Edit) - and some of your definitions quite frankly do not match. Even the video you linked contradicts you.

Statism can be summed up in one sentence. Statism is a political philosophy that believes that the state can be used to support social, economic, or other goals. Nothing more. Even minarchists are statist to some extent as per your other links. Why?

That is a form of statism as well. Total anarchy is the only political philosophy that does away with any form of statism. This is why I stated it does not oppose liberty except for, perhaps, in the absolute most literal sense in "Pure anarchy and the strongest gets everything!!!!!! Anything else isn't liberty!!!!" Or, in other words, to say that any form of government ever created or conceived of is statist is correct. That's true. By definition, that is what statism is. Statism no more contradicts liberty then the idea that someone should not be able to assault you and take your stuff contradicts liberty - to desire laws and police to stop this is statist.

No, I think this because Paul has given some specific and very distasteful stances on things such as abortion. The moment any candidate says anything other than abortion-is-ok, they are trying to tell the population what they can or cannot do with their body. This directly opposes your stances on liberty as well I'll note. The government has no business regulating what people can or cannot do to their own bodies, assuming they are over the age of majority, in my eyes. Including suicide, Brainy.

With all of that said, that is an excellent video on liberalism, Jason. I am reposting it with credit to you on this forum. ****, I'm going to be reposting it on other forums as well with credit to you if you want it.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Let's be clear: your issue with Ron Paul is not that his abortion stance is inconsistent with individual liberty, it's that you disagree over the science of when life begins. Unless you actually believe that individual liberty for parents is so superior to individual liberty for children that parents have the right to kill their own children if they are inconvenient, of course -- but I'm guessing that's not what you believe.

The whole argument swings on when life begins. If Paul is convinced that life begins at or near conception (or that, in our uncertainty, we must err on the side of caution in order to avoid the inadvertent destruction of human life), then he is being absolutely consistent to protect the individual rights of the unborn.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Yeah private property, self-reliance, individual rights, following the consitution and staying out of war; all ******* insane.

there's nothing in the middle of the road except for double yellow lines and a dead armadillo.

middle-of-the-road compromises lead to long drawn out 2-month tax credit extension debates.

JasonC SBB

And if the legal definition says it begins when brain waves start at say 4 mos (I'm guessing), then abortion after 4 mos violates the principle of right to life, but not beforehand.

Besides, Paul argues that it should be left to the individual States.

JasonC SBB

Let's agree on the terms for now that anything more than Minarchy is Statist. In a Minarchy the purpose of gov't is to protect individual and property rights, and enforce contracts. This *maximizes* liberty. (AnarchoCapitalist arguments aside, that power always grows)

Anything beyond Minarchy (e.g. "support" economic or social goals), always yields *inferior* results - as fundamentally *any* monopoly by force (i.e. gov't), taking over services that the market can provide, or "solving" problems society can solve, will *always* benefit a small group at the expense of many, resulting in a net negative. You name it: FDA, Federal Reserve, Education, etc.


I look fat so don't give me credit. But yes re-posting it is great as it clears up misconceptions and brings up ideas rarely discussed.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

but two things should also be cleared up:

that classical liberalism (more or less) equals modern libertarianism

and that classical liberalism does not equal modern liberarlism

Hiro and Satori

It was very libertarian...you had the liberty to own slaves, send your kids to the coal mine, sell your wife by the hour.

Seriously, 10th century quality of life run by clan-chiefs? So what, you can enjoy your liberty in Alameda Co. but since the chief of Contra Costa Co is a bastard, it's off limits?!?

United

States

America

what's so hard to understand? It's not Fractured Clans of the Western Hemisphere!

Hiro and Satori

Quote:

"Anything beyond Minarchy (e.g. "support" economic or social goals), always yields *inferior* results - as fundamentally *any* monopoly by force (i.e. gov't), taking over services that the market can provide, or "solving" problems society can solve, will *always* benefit a small group at the expense of many, resulting in a net negative. You name it: FDA, Federal Reserve, Education, etc.

Says who!?! It's repeated over and over by the ultra right wing but what modern society proves its true? You know fire departments used to be owned by insurance companies? Should we go back to that model?

I think every one of the 300+ million Americans currently enjoy a much better quality of life compared to colonial patriots or Icelandic clans-men. Business makes money, they are not any good at education, regulation, health and safety, or personal rights. They exist for profit, anything created beyond profit is a sign of a bad business.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

and there were seven American Presidents before George Washington.

what's so hard to understand?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

he's talking not of quality of life, yet total liberties.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

0h great a ninja editor.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

easy:



I dunno, would they do a better job? State Farm has always come through for me, my dad nearly bleed out once waiting for the fire department to respond to my 911 call.

Hiro and Satori

Do you suggest that Paul is going to make the point of conception the age of majority?!!?

Otherwise personal liberty, as viewed by out "founding fathers" means that you can sell your children, just like a goat. When our consititution was written, nobody believed children deserved ANY rights, while parents were given liberty to do what the feel was best. Sooner or later you have to cross that bridge.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I'd argue our government isn't good at any of those things.

Abolishing slav...Oh you're from California... of course.

Hiro and Satori

Check out the history of the Great Fire of Chicago. Pretty sure the paramedic got there before the cheque from the State Fund adjuster.

Hiro and Satori

That's the best you've got??

At least tell me that there are businesses that exist to help society solve it's ills...Non-Profit status Organized Religion.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Oh no the Children.

children can't smoke, have sex, vote, drive, don't have freedom of speech in schools...