I know that Clinton hate is big on the internet, but she may actually be the best democratic candidate. She's the best if you want an unprincipled centrist who will say anything to get votes. She's the best if you don't mind the Presidency being passed from one family to another (Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, Bush to Clinton). She's the best if you want yet another Baby Boomer who knows bugger-all about modern technology, and is willing to interfere with adults in the name of "protecting the children".
If the rumors are true, the only good thing about Hillary Clinton may be her taste in women.
Read up on collective action problems and market failures. You have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to this debate until you understand them. I've read about them, I understand them, and I refuse to care about them. The fact that some people are assholes is no reason to violate the rights of people who aren't assholes. Now, if you don't like what I say, ignore me. I am going to continue to speak my mind, whether you like it or not. And just who are you, that I should care about your opinion?
Why are you kidding yourself? It's not about homeland security and it never was. It's about making people predictable and controllable. It's about power: the people who have it want more of it, and they don't ever want to let it go.
We're not talking about something that's merely "objectionable." Stupid people invariably end up poor, and a good number of poor people end up as criminals. Also, what Jefferson had to say about public education, specifically that an uneducated person cannot hope to guard their own liberty. Given how stupid many Americans are today and what our government is up to, I have to think he was on to something. Thomas Jefferson as right about ignorant people being unable to guard their liberty. He forgot to mention that the gap between education and schooling is so wide that Evel Knievel would have earned a billion dollars just for attempting to jump it.
I tend to agree with that, except that stupid people are harming my freedom, because they are stupid. Most reasonable, intelligent people don't support the knee-jerk reactions to 9/11. But look at who does.. Considering that the US government's meddling set the stage for 9/11 in the first place, I'd suggest that the existence of government itself is a bigger problem than having idiots run the government.
Mostly agree, but how do you think we should build roads, a communications infrastructor, etc? Those things DO benefit the public good, its been proven already, so I feel for those limited projects taxes are necessary. Also, we do need to be able to raise an army, and we need money to pay judges and court clerks for example.. so unless you have another fair way of funding things like that, I think we have to live with some taxes. I can't give a concise answer to these questions here on Slashdot. May I suggest reading the works of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, and Milton Friedman?
Well all of the things we are talking about are wrapped in political debate, and Ron Paul talks about going back to the Constitution.. I fail to see how debating public policy (politics) on a political thread would be modded off-topic. Trusting a stranger armed with mod points is about as smart as trusting a stranger with a badge and a 9mm semi-automatic.
Well, do it your way and we have a large number of morons running around and we fall behind as a society, which leads out the collapse of our society. Last time I checked, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn't spend 12 years doing time in a modern American public school. In fact, the public schools in which you and I did time didn't exist until the late 19th century. They were created in imitation of Prussia's system, which was meant for one purpose: to create a uniform citizenry that would obey the government.
Oh wait, we have that now.. but your plan would simply accelerate ten-fold. If American society is fucked, it is fucked because of hypocritical busybodies who want liberty for themselves, but don't trust "the masses" with it.
When I have to live among their kids, I get a say. Besides, right now I'm PAYING for other peoples kids, so yes, that definitely gives me a say today. No, you don't, unless you want the family next door to have a say in your life when you do something they deem objectionable. As for paying for other kids' education: I don't think you should have to do that. I don't think I should have to do it either. Your kids are your problem; nobody else should be taxed to subsidize your inability to use contraceptives.
Why should I? Other's don't seem to trust me, so I need permission to be able to travel to work, modify my house and a host of other things. If you want to get rid of all that too, good. Yes, I want to get rid of that shit. As long as nobody can prove that you're harming them or damaging their property, nobody should have a say in how you live your life or what you do with your property. You shouldn't even have to pay taxes; the money you earn is yours by right.
But I can't understand why you'd single out education. It's hard to understand that I don't want to get modded down for being "Off-topic"?
It makes no difference to me, since I myself didn't ask the questions. Chances are that you didn't get to ask either. Slashdot's editors did; they picked the questions and passed 'em along to the appropriate flunky at Ron Paul's campaign HQ.
His campaign web site isn't factual, it's a sales pitch. We don't push those here.
Let me see if I have this straight: Paul's website is a sales pitch, but the wishy-washy answers Roblimo got from the Paul campaign and posted as the article isn't? As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between the two. Both are claims as to where Ron Paul stands on particular political issues. That is all they are: sales pitches.
You can call me cynical, but as far as I'm concerned, all news is propaganda. Hard facts are diamonds trapped in a matrix created by the manner in which a journalist chooses to present the facts. Read a news article, and you are not just getting the facts, but the journalist's (or his editor's) perception of the facts.
This post is also propaganda, like every other post here.
We need to set a baseline that all Americans can be expected to know / perform. Why? What do you gain by trying to mold tens of thousands of children into a known quantity? Is your name John D. Rockefeller, by any chance?
Some parents wouldn't even force their kids to learn basic math and reading, instead focusing on art. So what? Who are you to tell somebody else how to raise their kids?
Its not a good idea./quote.
In other words, you don't trust others with liberty. Zip up, pal; your elitism is showing.
I used to vote Libertarian, and I don't smoke pot. I do enjoy getting laid, though. And I miss being able to fly without being frisked coming and going with no explanation other than "it's your turn".
The whole thing is bullshit. It's politics. What exactly did you expect? As for the answers; they're nothing but sound bites. It would be better if Taco had just linked to the Issues page on Ron Paul's website.
Tell me, of the 4 front-runners (Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain), who deserves your vote? The answer is: None of the above. I said something like this yesterday in another discussion, but I doubt you'll convince many people. Unfortunately, most people want a leader. Most people want to delegate the responsibility of thinking onto another person, so that when the shit hits the fan they can say, "Don't blame me, I was just following orders."
The main question I have for Ron regards education. We have slipped horribly by giving control of the school system to the government. Sure, our government isn't that bad. I can think of much worse governments out there. But, does it really matter? Why does the government decide what to teach our kids? Why do they decide whether to teach evolution or creation? Why do they decide where the children go for field trips? Why can't those decisions be given back to parents? Ron, what plan do you have to eliminate the government's role in education?
I'd like to know what you mean by eliminating the government's role in education. Are you only talking about abolishing the Federal Department of Education? Or do you also want to see compulsory attendance laws and child labor laws repealed, and public schooling abolished?
Not only are you missing the point, but you seem awfully keen on justifying government paternalism. Liberty isn't about efficiency. Liberty is about leaving adults free to make of their lives what they can. The minute you interfere in the name of efficiency, or some illusory "common good", you violate the rights of others to their own lives. What do you hope to accomplish by doing this?
Moreover, in the US you have additional constitutional protections which deliberately limit what can be done collectively.
Really? I bet that would be news to Congress. Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to do most of the shit it does. It sure as hell doesn't authorize social security, or universal health care, or letting the President send troops off to war without a formal declaration of war from Congress.
I'm happy for you that you trust the government. It must be a nice feeling. Some of us, however, know better than to trust an entity that embodies coercion and depends upon coercion for its continued existence.
My local power monopoly never promised unlimited juice for a flat monthly rate. The local cable monopoly claimed unlimited access at X transfer rate for a flat monthly fee. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, here.
You valued your poxy wallet over your life!?! No, I valued my self-respect over my life. My pride does not allow me to just bare my throat like a good little victim. You might understand that some day.
But eventually I realized that in an established system like the US has, it's far more effective to enact change by working within the established rules than it is to give it all a middle finger and write it off as broken. Who says you can't do both? I've written off the established system as defective, but I still work within the rules to change the system by changing people's minds. If somebody asks my why I don't vote, I explain why. If they have questions, I'll answer them. Some people come to see things my way. Others don't. Wasn't it Gandhi who told people to be the change they want to see in the world? That's what I'm doing. I oppose the use of coercion, so I will not force people to see things my way. If they come to me, I will try to persuade them. If they do not, I will leave them alone.
Imagine what our educational system would be like if we assumed that every person had a chance of being chosen by lottery to be president or vp or a congressperson between their, say, 30th and 70th birthdays? Actually, you can run for a seat in the House of Representatives at the age of 25.
What would the perfect education for a potential president to be include? Macroeconomics? Foreign policy? Sociology? Comparative religion? Military tactics and strategy? Schools in the US have a hard enough time teaching kids how to read, write, and do arithmetic right now. You think any high school is going to be able to adequately discuss the merits of (for example) Austrian economics versus Keynesian economics? By Lilith's heart-shaped ass, my college economics professor didn't know who Ludwig von Mises was until I gave him a copy of Human Action.
Despite the kernel of truth to it, I really dislike this reasoning. Just because leaders are all flawed does not mean they are all equally flawed. If you think so, then it doesn't matter at all who runs the country. There's no reason whatsoever to take Bush out of office.
Actually, there are plenty of reasons to take Bush out of office. Most of them involve abuses of power. I'm looking for a good reason to replace Bush with somebody else. Why not try doing without a President for four years? Belgium has been without a government for months, and they seem to be doing fine.
Hell, why not let my cat be the President. He's over thirty-five in cat years, he was born in the US, and the Constitution doesn't state that the President must be human. Granted, my cat would probably spend most of his time in office napping in windows and demanding belly rubs from visitors, but I doubt he'd start any wars or suggest that waterboarding isn't torture.
What's wrong with the 17th amendment? You don't want senators to be elected directly by the people of the state?
No, I don't. The people get to vote for the occupants of the House of Representatives. As far as I'm concerned, direct election of senators deprives state governments of representation in Congress, which prevents the states from checking and balancing the Federal government's power in domestic matters.
I know that allowing the state governments to appoint Senators isn't terribly democratic. I don't care. A lynch mob is democratic, but that doesn't mean that we should encourage lynchings.
If you haven't been robbed at gunpoint or had somebody close to you murdered, odds are pretty good that you live in a society that provides some sort of law enforcement. Not that it's any of your business, but I've been robbed at knifepoint, and stabbed when I refused to hand over my wallet. The police never found a suspect.
You don't see the difference between someone who knows what's best for you and someone who wants to get you (and others) involved to decide that for yourself?
How exactly is Barack Obama going to help me decide that for myself? Is he going to work to scale back the government's authority? Is he going to lower taxes? Is he going to curb inflation? Is he going to force the government to relinquish powers that according to the Constitution it should never have had? If Barack Obama can't get the government out of my way, then he's worthless to me.
I realize that as an anarchist, you'd prefer nobody in a position of power, but given the fact that we have a system in place that's giving us the choice of several candidates, isn't it kind of a waste of time... much less very silly and pointless... to reject them all out of hand? I'd say it's more of a waste of time (in my case, at least), to look at each of the candidates, research their stated positions and their voting records, and try to decide which candidate is the least unpalatable. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and I am tired of dirtying my hands in that voting booth. Every time you step in and pull the lever, you consent to the continued existence of the state. If you're willing to do that, that's your business. I refuse to rubber-stamp the existence of a government that embodies coercion and ensures its continued existence through coercion.
Essentially: who WOULD be a worthwhile presidential candidate? Seems like of any election in memory, we have the possibility to enact real change with our vote. As opposed to apathetically not voting. My refusal to vote isn't due to apathy. If I have anything resembling a moral principle, it's this: nobody has the right to rule over others, not directly and not by proxy. By voting, I am choosing proxies who will initiate force against others on my behalf. I do not have the moral right to do this, so I will not vote.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes no difference to me, since I myself didn't ask the questions. Chances are that you didn't get to ask either. Slashdot's editors did; they picked the questions and passed 'em along to the appropriate flunky at Ron Paul's campaign HQ.
Let me see if I have this straight: Paul's website is a sales pitch, but the wishy-washy answers Roblimo got from the Paul campaign and posted as the article isn't? As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between the two. Both are claims as to where Ron Paul stands on particular political issues. That is all they are: sales pitches.
You can call me cynical, but as far as I'm concerned, all news is propaganda. Hard facts are diamonds trapped in a matrix created by the manner in which a journalist chooses to present the facts. Read a news article, and you are not just getting the facts, but the journalist's (or his editor's) perception of the facts.
This post is also propaganda, like every other post here.
They are, according to his website. Frankly, I think we should go further, but getting the gorram Feds out of the way is an acceptable start.
I used to vote Libertarian, and I don't smoke pot. I do enjoy getting laid, though. And I miss being able to fly without being frisked coming and going with no explanation other than "it's your turn".
I'd like to know what you mean by eliminating the government's role in education. Are you only talking about abolishing the Federal Department of Education? Or do you also want to see compulsory attendance laws and child labor laws repealed, and public schooling abolished?
Not only are you missing the point, but you seem awfully keen on justifying government paternalism. Liberty isn't about efficiency. Liberty is about leaving adults free to make of their lives what they can. The minute you interfere in the name of efficiency, or some illusory "common good", you violate the rights of others to their own lives. What do you hope to accomplish by doing this?
Moreover, in the US you have additional constitutional protections which deliberately limit what can be done collectively.Really? I bet that would be news to Congress. Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to do most of the shit it does. It sure as hell doesn't authorize social security, or universal health care, or letting the President send troops off to war without a formal declaration of war from Congress.
I'm happy for you that you trust the government. It must be a nice feeling. Some of us, however, know better than to trust an entity that embodies coercion and depends upon coercion for its continued existence.
My local power monopoly never promised unlimited juice for a flat monthly rate. The local cable monopoly claimed unlimited access at X transfer rate for a flat monthly fee. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, here.
If the Republican party is conservative, then I have three prehensile penises.
Actually, there are plenty of reasons to take Bush out of office. Most of them involve abuses of power. I'm looking for a good reason to replace Bush with somebody else. Why not try doing without a President for four years? Belgium has been without a government for months, and they seem to be doing fine.
Hell, why not let my cat be the President. He's over thirty-five in cat years, he was born in the US, and the Constitution doesn't state that the President must be human. Granted, my cat would probably spend most of his time in office napping in windows and demanding belly rubs from visitors, but I doubt he'd start any wars or suggest that waterboarding isn't torture.
No, I don't. The people get to vote for the occupants of the House of Representatives. As far as I'm concerned, direct election of senators deprives state governments of representation in Congress, which prevents the states from checking and balancing the Federal government's power in domestic matters.
I know that allowing the state governments to appoint Senators isn't terribly democratic. I don't care. A lynch mob is democratic, but that doesn't mean that we should encourage lynchings.
How exactly is Barack Obama going to help me decide that for myself? Is he going to work to scale back the government's authority? Is he going to lower taxes? Is he going to curb inflation? Is he going to force the government to relinquish powers that according to the Constitution it should never have had? If Barack Obama can't get the government out of my way, then he's worthless to me.