Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul's New Primary Goal Is "Internet Freedom"
Charliemopps writes "Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom. From the article: 'Kentucky senator Rand and his father Ron Paul, who has not yet formally conceded the Republican presidential nomination, will throw their weight behind a new online manifesto set to be released today by the Paul-founded Campaign for Liberty. The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace what has been their movement's long-running top priority, shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank. The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook.' This seems like welcome news to me. Let's see if they can get more traction here than they did with the Fed."
Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom.
Depends what you mean by freedom. According to this Ars Technica Article, he means the freedom of corporations to decide who gets to speak and what they get to say on the Internet.
This seems like welcome news to me.
I'd say that depends pretty heavily on whether you want citizens to be free to speak, or network providers to be free to generate revenue by restricting speech.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
He was reelected 11 times, often by overwhelming margins. So it seems his constituents disagree with you.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
The Internet allows the only real free flow of information nowadays. That's why keeping it open is so important. Without the Internet, the only information we'd get would come from CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CBS, etc.
The Internet is only free press. Hence the desire to keep it unfettered.
And yet, if you read the linked article, they wish "to stop attempts to impose 'Net Neutrality' rules on broadband providers [and] broaden private control of the wireless spectrum," neither of which act to "allow the free flow of information," nor are they supportive of "Internet freedom."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
No, that's more BS media propaganda. Ron Paul voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has said he's in favor of allowing gay marriage at a federal level. He's personally against it just like he's also personally against abortion, but he's consistent in sticking to his beliefs that people (and states) should have the right to decide for themselves. So don't listen to these people who go on about how he's some racist homophobe who wants to pass laws limiting civil liberties. That's a bunch of BS, the guy supports equal treatment for everyone, gay, straight, man, woman, pro-life, pro-choice, whatever. For future reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Because in an era of unchecked, unlimited federal power, an equally extreme counterpoint is not only refreshing, but necessary. Sure, it's better to take the middle ground. You only end up at the middle when both sides are equidistant from it. If you start in the middle, you'll only end up skewed to one side, just less so than if everyone was at an extreme. Which is what we've been seeing these days.
There are, of course, many different axes, and just because one is at one extreme on one axis does not imply that person is the same degree of extreme on any of the others.
I'm not a libertarian, but I do recognize that they have a place in this government.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Sounds like a great record to me. The less Congress does, the better. Not every problem is something for government to try to solve.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
"Internet Freedom" sounds like a phrase designed to make being anti-Net Neutrality sounds good.
And no wonder: Verizon and AT&T are heavy contributors to Rand Paul's campaign.
Make no mistake: there's nothing "free" about the state-granted monopolies the wireless and cable industry have. Since they're monopolies, they ought to be regulated.
And if regulation is removed, you know that the telecom industry will be hitting up Google and Netflix for cash right away.
"Internet Freedom" means freedom for Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T to charge siteowners like Google and Amazon just because they feel like it.
"Internet Freedom" means every single thing you do on the Internet is going to cost more because Verizon and Comcast need to keep posting massive increases in profits.
"Internet Freedom" means freedom for the carriers to hold you hostage. ...and if you think that the 'free-market' will solve this, remember: bandwidth is scarce and already monopolized by the big carriers. You won't see landline competition either: the big carriers also have all the local governments locked up so there won't be any competition there. And you know that the Pauls won't be taking on the local governments so that there can be competition in the landline market.
In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman."
Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes "efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[143] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996
Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The second quote is the best. Basically, "I don't think the federal government should preclude the states allowing gay marriage, so I support the federal law that bans gay marriage." WTF?
"Internet collectivists are clever," the manifesto says, accusing their foes of series of Orwellian linguistic twists. "They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously pushfor more centralized control. 'Openness' means government control of privately owned infrastructure.'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems tobe 'neutral'."
The irony is that If he gets his way on this issue HE will be among the most likely to be stifled.
As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!"
-- QED
Ron Paul is now our friend... for now.
I'm not so sure. I would rather have net neutrality myself, and this is exactly the opposite of that (it even says that on the website). It's another of his "let the free market fix all the problems" approaches. Of course some paullowers - especially some of the ones here on slashdot - will insist that he is the lord, savior, and the only source of true knowledge.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.
You can't be serious. This place is a hotbed of anti-free market sentiment, especially when it comes to protectionism. It's also nigh on impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about something like science funding or healthcare without wading through a morass of snarky comments about the toxic fruit of capitalism. And besides that, the comment you're replying to, which is critical of Paul, is currently at +4. So, yeah.
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.
What? Are YOU new here?
Hint: The political groupthink here is WAAAAAAY to the left of Dr. Paul.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
From reading the article, it sounds like the Pauls are more afraid of the government than corporations, which is a mistake IMHO. Eisenhower talked of the Military-Industrial complex. It's all slowly merging into one giant GovCorp, where the politicians and top corporate executives entrench themselves further and further, scratching each other's backs.
There's the concept of "Creative Destruction." The working classes are well acquainted with it. The problem is that where it's needed most, at the top of the political system and in financial sectors, it's almost completely prevented from occurring.
The Economist had an interesting article entitled "The question of extractive elites."
From that article: "In an extractive economy, such as the Belgian Congo and its successor state, Zaire, a narrow elite seizes power and uses its control of resources to prevent social change... Much of current economic policy seems to be driven by the need to prop up banks, whether it is record-low interest rates across the developed world or the recent provision of virtually unlimited liquidity by the once-staid European Central Bank. The long-term effects of these policies, which may be hard to reverse, are difficult to assess."
Uh... dude, have you actually READ the proposed "net neutrality" rules?
Hint: They have nothing to do with what you and I mean by "net neutrality." They're just a Government power-grab, and nothing else. THAT is what Dr. Paul opposes.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
the individual's?
or freedom like this?:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/07/04/1538201/verizon-claims-net-neutrality-violates-their-free-speech-rights
the problem the pauls and libertarian fundamentalists like them have is they are incredibly naive about what small government really means: a power vacuum that is filled by corporations. at least with our deeply flawed government, there is actually a pretense that it is supposed to stand for our individual freedoms, and some means of recourse
weaken our government, and you are left with monopolies and oligarchies who are happy to trample on our freedoms in the name of their "freedom", and no recourse whatsoever
oh yeah, you can take your business to a competitor, because without regulation the three dominant players aren't colluding and squashing all real competition
oh yeah, you can sue them in court. like you have 6 months and $100,000 and you lose anyway because they can just wear you down with their legion of lawyer goons
give it up, randroids
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Right, in the same state that elected W and Perry for Governor.
Anyone like me to dares to suggest that ron paul is not the second coming is generally moderated down quickly and severely.
This is not true. Moreover, everyone on Slashdot knows that if you begin your post with "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..." you will in fact get modded up.
"Name ONE thing Obama has wanted that is actually good for the country."
Not having Palin as VP.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Just because people disagree with you (and with the other people who unthinkingly agree with you) doesn't make them "groupthink". Spouting nonsense like "to the left" is groupthink. Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.
--
make install -not war
Its obvious from reading the comments on this story that a lot of you all think this means Ron Paul is in favor of a free and open internet, and has come out in favor of net neutrality. You all obviously don't know Ron Paul. For him, and his son, "internet freedom" means businesses on the internet are free to do as they please, capitalism rules, and net neutrality will die a quick death.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Obama's executive record features some of the most and largest legislation ever passed by any president.
It apparently escaped your notice that it's not the prerogative of the president to pass legislation. That's OK, he doesn't seem to know it either, what with him deciding that he has the power to imprison or kill people on nothing but his own say-so.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The US elected W as their president. So I would say that Texas is good at churning out politicians that have a chance at the federal level.
Its not what it is, its something else.
"State's rights" in practice is almost always a way to hide one's immoral motives.
So every founder of this country that favored a weak central federal government was just trying to hide some "immoral motive", and wasn't thinking about how we'd just come out of a war with a central federal government system that had repressed pretty much whatever it wanted even though it was on the other side of an ocean from us?
Or is the concept that the best government is the one closest and most responsive to the citizens that have granted it the right to exist somehow an "immoral motive"?
I would definitely mod this up if I had any points. It's also worth pointing out that in the rare circumstances where he actually gets congress to vote on one of his proposals, it ends up getting watered down by the other members of congress so much that it becomes pointless. Of course, this is no fault of Rep. Paul's. You can read about such an event here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act , but you might as well not waste your time because me and the other 20% of the voters in the GOP primaries that voted for Ron Paul are all KKK members.
Equal pay for women
Which he demonstrates by having significant gender-based inequities within his own White House staff.
enabling bio/stem-cell research
Which wasn't dis-abled before. Private parties could (and did) have at it with billions of dollars behind them. Taxpayer-based research continued with existing materials. Nobody was prevented from doing research, and indeed plenty was going on before, and after Obama's election.
cash for clunkers
Which, with the administrative overhead, cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars per car sold. An incredibly inefficient redistribution of other people's money.
a lot of military reform
A "lot," huh? By that standard, his predecessor did exactly the same thing.
openly gay is a-ok
Which was inevitable and already well on its way to happening.
addressing the body armor neglect controversy
Only when pressured by the press. He didn't care about it before he was elected, or after.
the walter reed controversy
You don't even know how to refer to it. Walter Reed was already slated to close, before he was elected.
ending iraq
The combat troop draw-down happened on the schedule set before he was elected. But of course he didn't end it, because it's not ended. There are tens of thousands of US troops there, right now, armed to the teeth. Of course you know that, and you're just trolling away, right?
Also there's the whole Somali pirates and Bin Laden thing..
Yes, he has shown that, just like other presidents, he is able to take advice from military professsionals, and approve their plans, which they then go about acting on. Bin Laden was hit based on intel that originated before he was elected, and handled by career people who were working that case before he was elected. Of course, you know all of that, too.
He did, though, just get a massive new tax program in place, aimed squarely at middle class and lower middle class people. You know, just like he promised he would never do. But we all knew he'd do it, so he fulfilled that expectation perfectly.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Real internet freedom needs freedom not only from government interference, but also from corporate interference. And the latter requires strong competition based alternative forms of internet access. Since it is not economical to build up that much duplicate physical connectivity to customers, internet access services will need to be split between a shared physical infrastructure and independent core connectivity and associated access services (DHCP, RADIUS, DNS, and whatever else the chosen technology may need). This common shared infrastructure needs to be regulated by government and operated as a regulated monopoly with a mandate to provide service to all on a level and open playing field.
IMHO, Ron Paul would never agree to any part of the infrastructure to be regulated in any way. Competing companies would not overbuild on each other more than 2 or 3 because of the capital inefficiency. As a result, there would not be sufficient competition for a viable free and open internet.
Ron Paul would certainly reject a single vertical internet provider monopoly which would effectively entrench government interference. At least that much is good about his positions.
Only a hybrid solution can ever really work. See how electricity is delivered in Texas. One company (Oncor Energy Delivery) operates the infrastructure and delivers the electricity to the customers of many competing energy providers which customers choose from. Ron Paul is from Texas, so he should know about this.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
There is no Free Market, The Free Market is handled in back rooms and the winners are the ones that fix the game. If we lived in a free market, things would look like Mad Max and Aretha Franklin would rule us all!
This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Paul (either of them) is a libertarian. Libertarians are really corporate anarchists, some motivated by petty local exploitations of groups vulnerable to local elites. There are no "real libertarians" as you'd probably define them, because libertarianism is a fallacy that ignores the corporate/warlord thrusts into the vacuum libertarianism creates. Every time, around the world, without exception.
Your "real libertarian" might exist in Sim City, but not in the real world. It's a fantasy. A dangerous one when it's pumped at us to deprive us of the power to create government to protect our rights. It's downright un-American.
--
make install -not war
Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.
Since when is it "groupthink" to refer to a man using the most prestigious of the titles he's earned?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Name ONE thing Obama has wanted that is actually good for the country.
Well, give the man his due. He did spare us a Hillary Clinton administration.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ron Paul only GOP candidate to publicly denounce SOPA
“My campaign, and the entire freedom movement, would not be as strong as they are today without a free Internet, and that’s just one of the reasons why the establishment hopes to censor it with SOPA and PIPA. I’m proud to see so many taking a stand today. Contact your representative and senators and tell them to oppose these disastrous bills.”
I don't expect /. to suddenly fill with voluntaryists, libertarians, or (Ron) Paulbots, but it is truly sad to see the level of false and malicious and partisan attacks against him. His version of freedom will not be the same as yours.
By way of example, he opposes state licensing of professionals and the state control of the medical industry. He wants you to have more avenues to take care of yourself and even stating in one of the GOP debates he would legalize alternative medicine. Likely, you want to be free from making medical decisions and have it all predetermined by a panel of experts laying out your approved and legal options.
Different strokes for different folks but your failure to support the most pro freedom candidate to hit the scene is fucking pathetic. No doubt, we will get stuck with another pro-war progressive because that is what Obama and Romney both are. Hundreds of thousands will die in Iran and you'll piss a fit as more stories of the Paul's are posted.
My main beef with Obama is that he claims to be everything he is not.
The biggest whopper is that he claimed to want transparent government. That apparently didn't matter when he unilaterally ratified ACTA without taking it through the senate (as is normal for any treaty) and without anybody but himself even being able to read it (granted there were leaks, we shouldn't depend upon leaks from a supposedly transparent government) He just signed our digital freedoms away without asking anybody.
Whats pathetic is how he happily parades around hollywood with the celebrities, and the fans of celebrities eat it up. Meanwhile they don't even realize that the celebrities themselves lobbied hard for him to take these freedoms away from us.
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1862
Among a bunch of other supporters:
http://www.ustr.gov/acta/
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
ITYM Tina Turner.
Neither did Hitler!
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
You'll notice they did away with that an adopted the constitution.
I don't know how you call it "doing away with" the concept of a weak federal government when they enacted a constitution based on that concept, and which explicitely said at the end "anything not taken by the feds in this constitution is left to the states and the people."
And, since "marriage" doesn't appear in the US Constitution, it's one of those things that are, by default, left to the states to deal with. Maybe it's some ICC-based issue? Selling wives across a state line would be hindered if different states had different laws about marriage?
"State's rights" in practice is almost always a way to hide one's immoral motives.
Speaking as a Californian who doesn't like the DEA harassing sick people who need marijuana, I'm going to say fuck you.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Since when is it "groupthink" to refer to a man using the most prestigious of the titles he's earned?
Which is more prestigious? A title that hundreds of people have, maybe even thousands, in a several county area, or a title that only one person in that area has (and only 435 in the entire country)? A title that comes about because a panel of five to seven people say you've accomplished the prerequisites (for Ph.D doctors, the committee), or one that takes the votes of tens of thousands of people to achieve?
A title that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and the job being performed by that individual, or the title that goes with the job?
I know I'll get modded up for saying this, but I disagree.
ah crap!!! I did it wrong, didn't I.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
The US elected W as their president. So I would say that Texas is good at churning out politicians that have a chance at the federal level.
Since when is W from Texas? I remember he moved there once for political purposes...
He just signed our digital freedoms away without asking anybody
No he didn't, Obama can sign what ever treaty he wants (in fact it's common practice for a head of state to do that), however in most non-dictatorships this is simply an "in principle" agreement, it's not a done deal until it is ratified by congress/parliment. You do however have a good point with the transparency thing, I don't see why they can't develop the text of the treaty in public, the IPCC manage to do a similar feat for a much more complex and contraversial subject, and they do for a measly $5-6M/yr.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If by "failure" you mean refusing to change his beliefs no matter how many checks get waved at him? well then i guess you'd call him a failure.
Sadly having principles in such a corrupted system will get you a record no different than his, because he won't "sweeten the pot" to get his way, pile on the pork or "play ball" which is why every damned bill that gets passed has so much shit added its not even funny anymore.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The Supreme Court elected W as our president.
Seems to me, Obama is still running the "I'm not GWB" campaign. He sure isn't running proud of his accomplishments for the last 3.5 years. Problem is, he isn't the great HOPE and CHANGE people were expecting. Just more of the same, only worse. Problem is, Romney isn't much better. But then again, I'm a (L) so ... the same old song and dance doesn't affect me much. More selling us to the highest bidder, and security for liberty exchange we always get using the same scare tactics.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Instead we get Joe Biden ... that is a complete wash IMHO.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
One needs to separate "marriage" as a private/religious institution from government reward of the same. The only legitimate interest, IMO, for government giving special privileges to those who marry (tax benefits, primarily) are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.
If you're going to take that line of thought, then "marriage" in that sense should be automatic between any couple who have children together, and excluded from anyone who doesn't yet have children. If marriage is to be about childrearing, then there should be (legally) no such thing as a childless marriage or a child out of wedlock. If you have a kid, you're "married"; if not, you're not. No contesting it.
Of course, there are other things involved in marriage besides the rights and responsibilities of children. Mutual rights in each others' property and lives (e.g. medical decisions in case of incapacitation). I can see a reason why people who aren't romantically or sexually involved at all might want to do something like that. Say you have two very straight guys who have no intention of ever settling down with one woman but plan to play the field their entire lives; but they are very close friends, have been housemates for years, etc, and want to buy a house together, file joint taxes on their mutual incomes and expenses, and have the other guy watch out for them if anything horrible should ever happen to them. Neither has any sexual or romantic interest in the other, and they each plan on having a different girl over every night, in their separate rooms, for the rest of their lives.
Why shouldn't they be able to make such financial and legal arrangements so resembling what we now call marriage? We don't have to call that marriage, call it a kind of incorporation, partnership, or union... a civil one, you might say. And let men and women in love with each other planning to raise a family get that exact same thing, and call it the exact same thing. And if those two guys want to make that arrangement, and are also having sex with each other, what difference does that make? What if more than two people want to live together and pool their lives and finances together -- whether or not any of them are having sex with each other -- what's wrong with letting them? And the slippery slope stops there, because children, dead people, goats, and furniture can't enter into contracts at all, and so there's no worry about anybody "marrying" any of those things if we replace marriage with a generic civil contract.
And then there's the social ceremony. This is legally meaningless, and should be the thing that gets the term "marriage". Let your favorite church, temple, mosque, coven, social club, or renaissance faire guild decide who they want to give what ceremony and recognize what title to, and let the law not give a shit about any of that. "Marriage" should be legally meaningless. Civil unions for everyone!
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Those who want gay marriage don't seem to want to settle for a legal status that doesn't include the term "marriage". Civil unions aren't good enough. Fixing bad civil union laws isn't good enough, even though they're trying to fix what they consider to be bad marriage laws, so they're trying to get laws changed either way.
If civil unions are good enough for gay couples, shouldn't they be good enough for straight couples too?
Get the government out of marriage entirely. Call it a civil union and forget about the sex of the people involved. Leave "marriage" to the churches, and give that no legal weight whatsoever.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I`d rather be a doctor than a representative, regardless of how few or many can be of either.
The Supreme Court elected W as our president.
I would love to take comfort in that idea, but really, that situation didn't happen because of the SC, it happened because half of us are idiots.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
There is no "fair market" because there is no "free market". Government doesn't help make things more free or more fair, it only helps the OTHER guys win.
Free means open to all. Fair means same rules apply to everyone. Free and Fair Markets would fix this economy in a heartbeat. Too many people have gamed the system to have either ever again. Instead we have Solyndra (both R and D supported) and Bailouts (both R and D supported) of banks and car companies (Except Ford).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"State's rights" in practice is almost always a way to hide one's immoral motives.
So every founder of this country that favored a weak central federal government was just trying to hide some "immoral motive", and wasn't thinking about how we'd just come out of a war with a central federal government system that had repressed pretty much whatever it wanted even though it was on the other side of an ocean from us?
I can't speak for the grandparent, but I read his comment as applying to the period of time after the vast majority of americans came to see governing most things as a legitimate role of the federal government. Every case I can think of after the 1850s where someone says "leave X to the states", they really mean "we would like the federal government to act on X, but the majority opposes our position, so we want state by state rules". Not exactly a principled position. A few example issues:
* Slavery
* School segregation
* Abortion
* Gun Control
* Drugs
* Gay marriage
* Health care
Suppose segregationists had the votes to pass federal jim crow laws. Do you think they would not do so because they cared about "state's rights"?
I know plenty of people who think drug laws and gay marriage should be a state issue. They don't feel that way about segregation or abortion. I don't know anyone under 30 who opposes gay marriage, so I suspect that in my lifetime a federal law to legalize it will pass. And the people who want it to be a state issue today will cheer. They don't care about states's rights. They care about winning.
I can think of a dozen politicians who claimed to care about state's rights on some issue. For each one, there is another issue on the list where they would happily use federal law to make states do what they want. Why? Because they can pass that federal law. The Pauls fail this test along with everyone else.
Why do people always think "more laws and more regulations will make everything better", when it never does?
Because NOT having laws protecting civil rights worked so well in the past.
Yup, Congress sitting on its hands sure helped avoid the Civil War and WWII... oh wait.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"A free market fixes everything" is nonsense. Imagine no rules/laws/regulations. Perfectly free market. To win, I'll murder my competition, and get away with it (until they murder me). There are no laws. It's free and fair, brutal and ugly.
OK, so we make murder illegal. And kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, etc. It's no longer a free market. But I don't think anyone minds.
But already, government can be corrupted. A sheriff that aggressively investigates crimes against my competitors while ignoring my crimes gives me an advantage. And this is just serious crimes.
The point is not to get government out of the way, it's to make government enforce fairness (you are right about that). And "less government" is not really the way to do this. I don't want a perfectly free market. If you take econ101, you'll see many ways businesses could screw over consumers with asymmetric info, monopolies, fraud, etc. And I want regulations to eliminate toxins in food, unreasonably dangerous products, etc. And I don't want to drink polluted water.
Solyndra is no big deal--they expected a percentage of businesses the government backed to not succeed, and Solyndra was in that percentage. If there's corruption involved, then I'd be mad, but I haven't heard of any yet. I'm glad the US government invested in the Internet.
You're wrong in a very fundamental way. Obama most certainly is proud of his accomplishments, as are most Democrats who voted for him. Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better, he's helped to radically shift society's perception of homosexuality, and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler. Am I in love with everything the guy's done? No, but on the whole, I am extremely proud to proclaim that I supported him in 2008, and I am happily doing so again this year.
You seem to be buying Republican attempts to make him out as ineffectual. I know it's pretty difficult with right wing politicians, Fox News and a whole bunch of talking heads on the radio constantly spewing out lies and misrepresentations about his record and corporations who want the unfettered ability to run roughshod over our freedoms spending hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of dollars on 24x7x365 slick well-planned marketing campaigns designed to get the poor and middle class to vote against their own self-interest. It's clearly a case of the old adage of telling a lie enough until even the person telling it believes it's true.
But make no mistake, I am not supporting him because of any kind of "I'm not GWB" campaign. The fact is that he inherited a hell of a mess caused by eight years of bad policy, and he's done an amazing job turning things around. Most Democrats knew this well enough in 2009 that they really haven't needed to constantly remind everyone except when Republicans keep trotting out things like the massive job losses that the U.S. sustained in Obama's first year when we were still operating under Bush's economy. If Republicans would stop pitching these losses as Obama's fault before he even had a chance to enact any policies, we would stop reminding everyone why those numbers were so bad.
But yeah, it's most certainly not more of the same. Ask anyone who is getting mortgage relief now. Ask any gay member of the military. Ask anyone who had their insurance policy canceled during the Bush years because they had an incurable condition. Ask the brave members of SEAL Team Six. Ask any young immigrant who is here through no decision of their own but, until a couple of weeks ago, faced the threat of deportation to a country they've never known. Anyone who thinks that the past four years have been more of the same is either lying, stupid, or grossly not paying attention.
We still have HOPE and we've seen CHANGE. Backtracking on that now would be one of the dumbest things the American electorate could ever do.
He wants you to have more avenues to take care of yourself and even stating in one of the GOP debates he would legalize alternative medicine.
It is neither the nefarious plots of Big Pharma nor the machinations of health-care officials that thwart naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic, etc, but objective reality. Besides, much of alternative medicine is already legal.
I suspect that Americans have more respect for physicians than they have for Congress.
I don't expect /. to suddenly fill with voluntaryists, libertarians, or (Ron) Paulbots
Funny, that's exactly what I have come to expect of /. when an article like this gets posted. And a surprising number of them suddenly seem to have mod points.
By way of example, he opposes state licensing of professionals and the state control of the medical industry. He wants you to have more avenues to take care of yourself and even stating in one of the GOP debates he would legalize alternative medicine.
WTF? So, how exactly can a patient be assured that a medical practitioner is competent? Or for that matter, any other agent in society whose lack of competence can be a threat to the public? (Such as car-drivers.)
And by the way, alternative medicine already is legal. Whether it actually is worth a damn is another discussion.
Likely, you want to be free from making medical decisions and have it all predetermined by a panel of experts laying out your approved and legal options.
Like, oh say, health-insurance companies?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
So, how exactly can a patient be assured that a medical practitioner is competent?
Well, you go by their track record. Obviously new doctors don't have one, so they offer very low prices, so poor people go there, and if they die you know you should avoid it later. The Free Market(tm) works!
Dilbert RSS feed
a lot of military reform (openly gay is a-ok
Using the military as lab rats for social-engineering experiments is bad defense policy.
Gee, looks like someone forgot to tell Harry Truman 'bout that...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
A "free market" doesn't mean an unregulated market. A "free market" means a market in which prices are set by supply and demand. Free markets require laws and a functioning legal system. Those are sufficient and necessary to prevent monopolies, fraud, harm from products and pollution, and asymmetric info: when these things occur, you (or even the government) can sue the people who caused them.
A market stops being free, however, when the government decides to go beyond that and implement economic plans through subsidies, price controls, loan guarantees, bailouts, etc.
An axis with liberal and conservative ends is not 2D but 1D.
Besides, in politics, the means one is eager to use in order to further one's values or ends, is just as important as where those values fall on this liberal/conservative axis. That requires another dimension of measurement.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
I can't correct it all right now...
I personally disagree with homosexuality, but even I can see the change has been occurring since long before Obama reached office.
There was a clear inflection point in polls though when Obama publicly stated his support for gay marriage.
Obama has had 3.5 years to do something and the unemployment rate has not only EXCEEDED the HIGHEST he said it would go, it has STAYED there for a long long time.
We've been doing doing about a million jobs a month better lately than the economy he took over in 2009. As economists know, spending is what pulls an economy out of a recession. You can clearly see when the stimulus worked in the unemployment numbers, but Congress blocked the jobs bill and has forced austerity, which is a drag on the economy.
How much voter fraud do we have in this country?
Almost none. Well, there was that O'Keefe guy. Got any others?
24.4% of eligible voters voted for W. 24.7% of eligible voters voted for Gore. 49% of eligible voters did not bother show up at the polls. Irrespective of your political leanings, it's more true to say that a quarter of you are idiots and half of you are dangerously apathetic.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul would be opposed to net neutrality full stop, since it involves the government meddling in how private corporations run their business. Sure, without net neutrality we're effectively giving a few major corporations the power to control and censor an important channel of communication, but in Paulworld that's not real censorship because it's not the Government doing it.
You mean like the whole Ayn Rand fanaticism, the racist newsletters, and the anti-choice and anti-women crap?
I love how everyone fawns over Ron Paul for one issue and ignores all the other batcrap crazy stuff that he does.
The Supreme Court elected W as our president.
In 2004?
The Hippocratic oath is an oath/EM., not a guideline to be bent for superstitious beliefs.
Yes, but in that case you are asking a doctor to do harm to what some feel is life. "Do no harm" is then applied with precedent (Do no harm to the mother first, then no harm to the baby). That is the both moral and ethical issue surrounding abortion so your point is weak.
Doctors certainly face this type of issue many times in their careers, not just with a pregnant mother, but with choices on who to save first. It is not a black and white oath when looked upon in that context.
If Dr. Paul turned away a mother for a routine abortion it could be viewed as his "superstitious beliefs" trumping his oath, or it could be viewed as his belief that he is doing harm to an unwitting life versus a mother who is otherwise in good health. Hmmmm, then he is following his oath. The SC legalized abortion, it did not compel doctors to perform them.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
I can't tell if I get more disappointed by seeing tired parrot arguments like these or seeing tired parrot arguments like these get modded insightful. Ron Paul could provide free medical care to a black family, declare his hero to be Martin Luther King, and expose the racism in the drug war and uninformed people would still call him racist because of some implications in newsletters he didn't write.
He actually did those three things.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Except for the guy currently running for president, Massachusetts politicians would not be a bad bet (since it's Democrats that run the state, you wouldn't want to pay too much attention to our Republicans anyway). Details here, but in general we score well on most metrics -- low divorce rate, lots of education, healthy population (especially children). Economically, high income, low unemployment, high productivity. What's not clear is whether the high incomes cause the other good stuff, or if the other good stuff attracts/causes the high incomes.
Interesting thing about Texas (and I did live there for about eight years) is whether they have forgotten the lessons that they learned back in the 80s. Back then, I believe it went: "Please God, Just Give Me One More Oil Boom. I Promise Not to Blow It Next Time."
What the moon is made of is not a Constitutional question, so it's beside the point. I guess you can't make your case without using ridiculous examples, huh?
Deciding what is and is not Constitutional is, by definition, interpreting the Constitution, since the Constitution is short and vague and doesn't directly answer most questions before the Court. The Court has to read between the lines and balance against precedent to decide what may or may not be Constitutional. It's not like the Constitution says, "an individual mandate for health insurance is fine for Congress to require." Nor does it say, "women have the right to an abortion." It shouldn't say those things--it was written as a basic guideline that is simply too vague to have a clear answer to every question.
If it was obvious what is Constitutional and what isn't simply from reading the text, we wouldn't need SCOTUS at all. At a minimum, such questions wouldn't be so contentious since it would be "obvious" what the Constitution means.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Sorry, but I also disagree with you. There is small but vocal group of libertarians on Slashdot and an overlapping vocal group of Ron Paul supporters but I'm convinced from observation that they are both small minorities. They are, perhaps, larger in comparison to what you would find on other sites with different demographics but Ron Paul supporters are a definitely a minority of Slashdot posters.
The pro-Ron Paul group's voice is magnified because they tend toward boorish krankerism which means they never shut up about their dear leader, but you should be careful to not confuse a small but loud group with a large group.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Another FDA shill that can't distinguish between alternative medicine and quackery.
Because there is no distinction. Alternative medicine is quackery. If there was evidence and research to show that it was effective, it would be called MEDICINE.
I suspect someone licensed and practicing as a doctor for 30 years knows a bit more about it than you do.
If he's advocating alternative medicine? No, he doesn't.
Do you know the story of red yeast rice and the big pharma / FDA collusion to ban the cheap and natural stuff to create the most profitable drugs in history?
No, but I do know that none of this "alternative medicine" bullshit you're trying to peddle has absolutely no research backing it up. If it did, then you'd not only be able to show it, but it would be able to get approval. But instead, you draw the tinfoil hat too tight, and claim it's a conspiracy.
There's trillions of dollars at stake, and people that don't care if you live or die.
Yes. These people are called "alternative medicine practitioners.