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.
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."
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?
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
Right, in the same state that elected W and Perry for Governor.
"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
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.
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
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."
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.
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."
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)
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.e., Obama has added more entitlements without addressing the question of cost control in any meaningful way. In different words, the young are getting shafted even more than they already are by the current system.
The change in attitudes is due to large numbers of people engaging in grass-roots advocacy for years and years. Obama ("my views are evolving") opportunistically took advantage of this change when it seemed politically prudent.
In different words, taxpayers are subsidizing people who bought homes that were too big and expensive for them.
Targeted killings, unlawful detentions, kill lists: Obama was supposed to end all this and he has failed to do so.
You are right, things are not the same: under Obama, crony capitalism, race baiting, pork, and politically motivated killings have reached new lows. With his policies, Obama is targeting a carefully selected portfolio of voters in order to get reelected, regardless of the long term consequences.
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
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
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.
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!
I think you're dead-on about Romney. He's super rich. He has no idea what problems average Americans struggle with. He's tried his hand at the financial market, he's been a governor, so what now? A bored rich guy's gotta find a hobby. Why not be President? Ever notice how uncomfortable he looks when he has to hang around "normal" people? He has no clue how to relate to them. He doesn't understand why he has to do all this silly song-and-dance just to get a job he wants.
I've never gotten the impression he wants to be President because he truly cares about this country and its people. For all McCain's faults, I never doubted his motives--he clearly cares about this country, even if his actual policy ideas are no good. Romney just comes off as bored and aloof. Being President is just something for him to do, not something he's truly energized about or something he brings real policy ideas to.
He seems intent on spending his whole campaign attacking Obama rather than putting forth his own ideas. He has no vision.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
What does it even mean to "agree/disagree" with a thing that happens? I hear people say that a lot, do they really mean "disapprove"? Agreement is for propositions. It makes sense to say "I disagree that homosexuality occurs in 5-10% of the population" or that "I disagree that homosexuality is a choice" or that "I disagree that homosexuality will not cause the collapse of civil society". Those are at least well formed ideas. Saying "I disagree with homosexuality" is a lot like saying "I disagree with poetry". What does that even mean?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!