What if Ron Paul were the President of the US

[The Liberated Territories]

Support for many small governments isn't exactly superior to one controlling one, unless there are states willing to increase liberty more than the government. Ergo, it's a utilitarian compromise.

Yeah, the thing is, smaller governments tend to be the most oppressive as far as the US goes. The Federal governent has traditionally served as the entity that enforces civil rights when the mobs in various states refuse to.

I agree with that much, but when the FED refuses civil rights while some states won't it becomes the opposite.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Civil Rights Act of 64- He opposes only one title of the law, and that is on the basis of his views on economics, as he doesn't believe in regulation. By your logic, all free marketers, including non-white free marketers are racist as they don't believe in the state coercing businesses to not discriminate.

Paul has also clarified that the invisible hand of the market will do the job in stopping racism, and that such a title would not only be unenforceable, but unnecessary. He opposes forced segregation, but he opposes forced integration too, as he believes in freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

He thinks marriage is a states issue, so he would be fine with states legalizing gay marriage. If he is homophobic, he would support a national ban on gay marriage.

Pretty much, yes. People who support allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of race are racists.

Are you fucking kidding me? How dare you. My granddad is Sri Lankan. Pretty solidly black. So because I'm not pretentious enough to believe that I should plan the lives of other people and tell everyone how to live the way I want them to at the barrel of a gun, I'm some kind of a self-hating racist? My God, I've never seen a straw man, ad hominem, no true Scotsman and black-or-white argument wrapped up so tightly in one little logically fallacious package. I've only ever seen Mavorpen jam so many fallacies into one.

No, I don't believe that private organisations should have the right to choose their customers because I hate my roots. I believe they should because it's their fucking property, and as bad as discrimination is the right to self-ownership is the most important right of all that derives all other rights. Despite its unconstitutionality (it is an undeniable violation of the First Amendment), perhaps I would have supported Title II of the Civil Rights Act in the 50s or 60s as a stop-gap measure to erase decades of unconstitutional segregation and economic slavery. But in our day and age, when any kind of discrimination is immediately jumped on by the media and special interest groups, it's just not needed anymore, and has the danger of concentrating too much power into the hands of regulators. Say I had an Asian girlfriend who I went through a nasty break-up with. She comes into my shop and wants to buy from me. I refuse her service because I don't like her. How easily could she sue me based on gender or racial discrimination?

Ultimately, the market is an inherently anti-racist institution (businesses want to reach out to as broad a customer base as possible) and racism and discrimination has always been defeated through voluntary boycotts and people power, not government action. The Civil Rights Movement only became a thing due to millions of free, independent human beings collaborating to fight injustice. They desegregated Montgomery and Greensboro, for example, because so much of the profit margins of the businesses involved relied on the African-American community.

He'd also be fine with states banning gay marriage, therefore he is against LGBT people because he does not give them equal protection under the law, regardless of where they live. If he is complicit in allowing states to ban gay marriage, when the federal government has the ultimate ability to legalize it in all 50 states, he is against the LGBT community.

He is also for states choosing to have their own minimum wage laws, government healthcare programs, equal pay initiatives, legalised flag-burning, and just about everything else they want to do. I guess if Ron Paul decided to let states have more autonomy, he must be a homophobic sexist racist patriarchal feminist-pandering gay supremacist?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yeah, the thing is, smaller governments tend to be the most oppressive as far as the US goes. The Federal governent has traditionally served as the entity that enforces civil rights when the mobs in various states refuse to.

I agree with that much, but when the FED refuses civil rights while some states will it becomes the opposite.

So there is no real fix here?

I'm not exactly sold on the idea of Ron Paul as POTUS. Doubt I'll ever be. Once again, the GOP gives me the hibbie-jibbies, but in the spirit of keeping an open mind, and no Reagan worshiping please, is it possible to have a GOP POTUS that will work and not just cave into party politics? That will work with both Reps and Dems and Independents alike to actually do something for the US?

Inversely, can we have a Dem POTUS who'll function the same?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Support for many small governments isn't exactly superior to one controlling one, unless there are states willing to increase liberty more than the government. Ergo, it's a utilitarian compromise.

Yeah, the thing is, smaller governments tend to be the most oppressive as far as the US goes. The Federal governent has traditionally served as the entity that enforces civil rights when the mobs in various states refuse to.

I wouldn't agree. The obvious example in your support would be the slave states, but ultimately slavery only went on due to the complicity of Washington, which was inexcusable. In modern times, the states do an undeniably better job at protecting our freedoms than the fed. Balanced budget amendments, marriage equality laws, drug legalisations, gun rights laws, school choice programs, anti-surveillance laws and so on have all come from the states. Many of these have been very much illegal at the federal level.

[Grand Britannia]

Eliminating income tax, the largest revenue of the Federal Government.

Splendid idea.

[Laerod]

Yeah, the thing is, smaller governments tend to be the most oppressive as far as the US goes. The Federal governent has traditionally served as the entity that enforces civil rights when the mobs in various states refuse to.

I agree with that much, but when the FED refuses civil rights while some states won't it becomes the opposite.

Doesn't happen anywhere near as often. The imposition of slavery on the North at the behest of the South comes to mind, but that's about it.

[Pragia]

Eliminating income tax, the largest revenue of the Federal Government.

Splendid idea.

Eliminating military spending, social security, and Medicare, the largest expense(s) of the federal government.

Splendid idea.

[Laerod]

Yeah, the thing is, smaller governments tend to be the most oppressive as far as the US goes. The Federal governent has traditionally served as the entity that enforces civil rights when the mobs in various states refuse to.

I wouldn't agree.

Good for you?

[Laerod]

Eliminating income tax, the largest revenue of the Federal Government.

Splendid idea.

Eliminating military spending, social security, and Medicare, the largest expense(s) of the federal government.

Splendid idea.

The 19th century was soooo awesome. Just imagine all the cholera we could be having!

[The Liberated Territories]

I agree with that much, but when the FED refuses civil rights while some states will it becomes the opposite.

So there is no real fix here?

I'm not exactly sold on the idea of Ron Paul as POTUS. Doubt I'll ever be. Once again, the GOP gives me the hibbie-jibbies, but in the spirit of keeping an open mind, and no Reagan worshiping please, is it possible to have a GOP POTUS that will work and not just cave into party politics? That will work with both Reps and Dems and Independents alike to actually do something for the US?

Inversely, can we have a Dem POTUS who'll function the same?

Fix the government before you go fixing anything else. Our system is a winner-takes-all that disincentivizes compromise and makes some groups poorly represented

In reality, the GOPs structure makes it look crazier than it is. Imagine if UKIP and Cons in Britain merged while UKIP overtook them. That is exactly what we have with the Tea Party and the GOP now.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So there is no real fix here?

I'm not exactly sold on the idea of Ron Paul as POTUS. Doubt I'll ever be. Once again, the GOP gives me the hibbie-jibbies, but in the spirit of keeping an open mind, and no Reagan worshiping please, is it possible to have a GOP POTUS that will work and not just cave into party politics? That will work with both Reps and Dems and Independents alike to actually do something for the US?

Inversely, can we have a Dem POTUS who'll function the same?

Fix the government before you go fixing anything else. Our system is a winner-takes-all that disincentivizes compromise and makes some groups poorly represented

In reality, the GOPs structure makes it look crazier than it is. Imagine if UKIP and Cons in Britain merged while UKIP overtook them. That is exactly what we have with the Tea Party and the GOP now.

That right there is pretty crazy, though.

What I constantly see, and yes, I'm a foreigner in this country and what not, but what I constantly see is a game of ''you propose/I block/I propose/you block''. In that spirit, nothing gets done. That's my assessment of the last 5 years in politics I've seen while living in the US.

[The Liberated Territories]

I agree with that much, but when the FED refuses civil rights while some states won't it becomes the opposite.

Doesn't happen anywhere near as often. The imposition of slavery on the North at the behest of the South comes to mind, but that's about it.

So if the government where to put a full ban on abortion, and the only compromise was giving the states the rights to set their own policy, who'd you side with?

[Pandeeria]

His libertarian economic policies leads to instability and problems in the long-term.

[Laerod]

Doesn't happen anywhere near as often. The imposition of slavery on the North at the behest of the South comes to mind, but that's about it.

So if the government where to put a full ban on abortion, and the only compromise was giving the states the rights to set their own policy, who'd you side with?

Hypothetical scenario is hypothetical. I do not see the Federal government imposing bans on abortions anytime soon. I have seen numerous State governments imposing de facto bans. The State governments have consistently shown that they are the primary enemies of the citizen so I view devolution with a great degree of suspicion.

[Atlanticatia]

Pretty much, yes. People who support allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of race are racists.

He'd also be fine with states banning gay marriage, therefore he is against LGBT people because he does not give them equal protection under the law, regardless of where they live. If he is complicit in allowing states to ban gay marriage, when the federal government has the ultimate ability to legalize it in all 50 states, he is against the LGBT community.

thats not true, its a libertarian argument that people can do what they want, governments can not. The KKK can ban black people from joining, they are a private organization, that does not received any public funding. The state of missori can not as they are public. A school can be discriminatory as long as they do not get any public money.

I know that it's a libertarian argument. That doesn't mean my opinion changes.

[The balkens]

Fix the government before you go fixing anything else. Our system is a winner-takes-all that disincentivizes compromise and makes some groups poorly represented

In reality, the GOPs structure makes it look crazier than it is. Imagine if UKIP and Cons in Britain merged while UKIP overtook them. That is exactly what we have with the Tea Party and the GOP now.

That right there is pretty crazy, though.

What I constantly see, and yes, I'm a foreigner in this country and what not, but what I constantly see is a game of ''you propose/I block/I propose/you block''. In that spirit, nothing gets done. That's my assessment of the last 5 years in politics I've seen while living in the US.

You are not wrong in that assessment, im afraid.

[Pragia]

His libertarian economic policies leads to instability and problems in the long-term.

Please elaborate and source your claims.

Eliminating military spending, social security, and Medicare, the largest expense(s) of the federal government.

Splendid idea.

The 19th century was soooo awesome. Just imagine all the cholera we could be having!

Yes, because not having state medical coverage means that we will go back to the 19th century in terms of medical technology and capability.

[Pandeeria]

Eliminating income tax, the largest revenue of the Federal Government.

Splendid idea.

Eliminating military spending, social security, and Medicare, the largest expense(s) of the federal government.

Splendid idea.

Obviously fucking over the poor is the way to go. It has been the way to go for the Republicans at least since they've adopted their Conservative ideals in the 1930's.

[The balkens]

Eliminating military spending, social security, and Medicare, the largest expense(s) of the federal government.

Splendid idea.

Obviously fucking over the poor is the way to go. It has been the way to go for the Republicans at least since they've adopted their Conservative ideals in the 1930's.

Fuck the poor, Blame them for all society's problems, Fuck them harder.

Rinse and repeat.

[Pandeeria]

His libertarian economic policies leads to instability and problems in the long-term.

Please elaborate and source your claims.

There's a reason why very few countries actaully practice economic policies with such little state intervention. It actaully does make sens:

The less the state is even mildly involved in the economy, the more it will go off track over the course of a few decades.

I'm sorry, but you're pseudo-Utopian ideals of a excellent, fully moving economy with virtually no government regulation simply doesn't work.

Eliminating military spending, social security, and Medicare, the largest expense(s) of the federal government.

Splendid idea.

The 19th century was soooo awesome. Just imagine all the cholera we could be having!

Yes, because not having state medical coverage means that we will go back to the 19th century in terms of medical technology and capability.[/quote]

They wouldn't get health coverage, which is pretty bad.

[Laerod]

His libertarian economic policies leads to instability and problems in the long-term.

Please elaborate and source your claims.

The 19th century was soooo awesome. Just imagine all the cholera we could be having!

Yes, because not having state medical coverage means that we will go back to the 19th century in terms of medical technology and capability.

Yep. The end result of libertarianism is feudalism. The nobility and serfs might have different names, but lacking any sort of public sector or a redistribution of wealth, the latter will end up concentrated amongst an aristocracy that exploits an underclass of have-nothings.

[Pragia]

Please elaborate and source your claims.

There's a reason why very few countries actaully practice economic policies with such little state intervention. It actaully does make sens:

The less the state is even mildly involved in the economy, the more it will go off track over the course of a few decades.

I'm sorry, but you're pseudo-Utopian ideals of a excellent, fully moving economy with virtually no government regulation simply doesn't work.

The 19th century was soooo awesome. Just imagine all the cholera we could be having!

Yes, because not having state medical coverage means that we will go back to the 19th century in terms of medical technology and capability.

They wouldn't get health coverage, which is pretty bad.[/quote]
1. Don't say your. I'm not a supporter of libertarian policy for the most part, especially their backward foreign policy.
2. 1800s US government didn't touch the economy. It resulted in an age of American industrial growth and growth of infrastructure. Sure, it resulted in horrid conditions, but that would be solved by a small amount of regulation.
3. The economy moves fastest when there is less in its way.

[Atlanticatia]

Pretty much, yes. People who support allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of race are racists.

Are you fucking kidding me? How dare you. My granddad is Sri Lankan. Pretty solidly black. So because I'm not pretentious enough to believe that I should plan the lives of other people and tell everyone how to live the way I want them to at the barrel of a gun, I'm some kind of a self-hating racist? My God, I've never seen a straw man, ad hominem, no true Scotsman and black-or-white argument wrapped up so tightly in one little logically fallacious package. I've only ever seen Mavorpen jam so many fallacies into one.

No, I don't believe that private organisations should have the right to choose their customers because I hate my roots. I believe they should because it's their fucking property, and as bad as discrimination is the right to self-ownership is the most important right of all that derives all other rights. Despite its unconstitutionality (it is an undeniable violation of the First Amendment), perhaps I would have supported Title II of the Civil Rights Act in the 50s or 60s as a stop-gap measure to erase decades of unconstitutional segregation and economic slavery. But in our day and age, when any kind of discrimination is immediately jumped on by the media and special interest groups, it's just not needed anymore, and has the danger of concentrating too much power into the hands of regulators. Say I had an Asian girlfriend who I went through a nasty break-up with. She comes into my shop and wants to buy from me. I refuse her service because I don't like her. How easily could she sue me based on gender or racial discrimination?

Ultimately, the market is an inherently anti-racist institution (businesses want to reach out to as broad a customer base as possible) and racism and discrimination has always been defeated through voluntary boycotts and people power, not government action. The Civil Rights Movement only became a thing due to millions of free, independent human beings collaborating to fight injustice. They desegregated Montgomery and Greensboro, for example, because so much of the profit margins of the businesses involved relied on the African-American community.

It's not really that people who are against regulation of businesses that discriminate are personally racist. They do, however, (even if it is unintended) are supporting and continuing institutional racism. Breaking down institutional racism requires state intervention as that can't be left to markets alone. It's not just about a business not serving black people at a restaurant. I agree that it's likely that a business that says "no black people" might get some bad press and lose some business. (Although, I still support regulations to punish businesses that discrimination.) But simple discrimination and institutional racism are very different.

I completely understand the justification behind this position - property rights, NAP, etc. However, I fundamentally disagree as someone who believes that society and the state must break down institutional racism to correct a 'market failure'. Society is going to take a very long time to change by itself. It's going to need a push.. businesses are going to need to be regulated and such to break down institutional racism that has been embedded for hundreds of years. Society has expunged the 'surface' racism where people go up to one another and say "get out of my sight you n****r!" However, institutional racism hasn't made as much progress.

I don't think that the state needs to be the only actor in breaking down institutional racism. Society will obviously play a large role. But government can encourage and shift society through laws and regulations, such as punishing businesses that contribute to institutional racism, and helping disadvantaged groups.

Opposing anti-discrimination regulation isn't an inherently bigoted idea (i.e. people aren't racists and supremacists for opposing it, as I understand there is libertarian philosophy behind it). However, that doesn't mean it's a good thing, just because it can be justified by libertarian philosophy. At the end of the day, regulations can reduce institutional racism. Opposing those regulations is indirectly allowing institutional racism to continue. Even if it's not obviously directly racist, like apartheid or segregation, it does contribute to some extent towards the lower socioeconomic position of disadvantaged groups, and upholds institutional racism.

He'd also be fine with states banning gay marriage, therefore he is against LGBT people because he does not give them equal protection under the law, regardless of where they live. If he is complicit in allowing states to ban gay marriage, when the federal government has the ultimate ability to legalize it in all 50 states, he is against the LGBT community.

He is also for states choosing to have their own minimum wage laws, government healthcare programs, equal pay initiatives, legalised flag-burning, and just about everything else they want to do. I guess if Ron Paul decided to let states have more autonomy, he must be a homophobic sexist racist patriarchal feminist-pandering gay supremacist?

Now that is a strawman. Giving states autonomy is giving states autonomy. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with him having an affinity for equal pay legislation, or that he necessarily likes same-sex marriage bans. However, that's just what happens when states are made more autonomous.

Regardless of that, allowing same-sex marriage bans to occur is still against LGBT people. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Pragia]

Please elaborate and source your claims.
Yes, because not having state medical coverage means that we will go back to the 19th century in terms of medical technology and capability.

Yep. The end result of libertarianism is feudalism. The nobility and serfs might have different names, but lacking any sort of public sector or a redistribution of wealth, the latter will end up concentrated amongst an aristocracy that exploits an underclass of have-nothings.

Uh huh, because obviously lords are elected by the serfs right? And the lords have no political influence because they are a minority in a representative democracy.

If you had said a confederation of states, I would've agreed.

[Pandeeria]

There's a reason why very few countries actaully practice economic policies with such little state intervention. It actaully does make sens:

The less the state is even mildly involved in the economy, the more it will go off track over the course of a few decades.

I'm sorry, but you're pseudo-Utopian ideals of a excellent, fully moving economy with virtually no government regulation simply doesn't work.


Yes, because not having state medical coverage means that we will go back to the 19th century in terms of medical technology and capability.

They wouldn't get health coverage, which is pretty bad.

1. Don't say your. I'm not a supporter of libertarian policy for the most part, especially their backward foreign policy.
2. 1800s US government didn't touch the economy. It resulted in an age of American industrial growth and growth of infrastructure. Sure, it resulted in horrid conditions, but that would be solved by a small amount of regulation.
3. The economy moves fastest when there is less in its way.[/quote]

The economy moves fast when there is competition. When an economy becomes bloated with monopolistic entities which naturally do occure when there is little regulation, comepittion is stomped out. And neo-feudalism occurs.