Libertarians and your 'Liberty'

[Alien Allen]

There is no purity in any of the think tanks

Regardless of their political bent

They all have an agenda and they like money

Nothing new there

 

[Stone]

There is no purity in any of the think tanks

Regardless of their political bent

They all have an agenda and they like money

Nothing new there

And this is about Libertarians, their think tanks and our 'Liberties'. :eek ( ..... )

 

[Stone]

I picked up a copy of Paul's 'Liberty Defined' yesterday and just opened it up to the Introduction minutes ago.
I'm 3 pages into it and it's already looking like a steaming pile of shit.
Rather obvious that it's written to be surfacey and appealing to those that aren't used to critical thinking.

liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives.

The concept of laws and regulations are the basis and means of a society regulating itself for its own protection,health and success. It's up to the members of society to decide what impinges upon the individual in a negative manner, not up to the individual in a selfish manner.
Once individual rights are established by decree, it's the same concept of laws and regulations that protect the rights of the individual.

Mr. Paul is establishing rule based upon ability. Not just the ability to succeed.....the ability to manipulate successfully. The issue becomes one of the ability to withstand said manipulation.


That was demonstrated in this thread as several members tried to derail it. And failed.
It was made clear that it was my responsibility to exercise my rights in presenting my own thoughts, but there was clear action in interfering with the achievement of presenting my own thoughts.

Now carry the concept into the field of monopolies, and it becomes easy to see in Libertarian terms.....that the concept manipulation doesn't necessarily impinge upon the exercising of rights, but it can definitely impinge upon the ability of achieving a goal within a right.
The concept may be present as a choice, but ability is reserved for those with the means to achieve it.
A new car is obviously reserved for those that can afford it.
But so would a basic education.
And clean air, and clean water.
Wealth rules.
Not that different to the present, just fewer rules/regulations and of course, fewer limits to the abuse.


So it's easy to see, right off the bat, Mr. Paul's Introduction on liberty...... does not equate directly to the concept of freedom as one might think.
It appears Mr. Paul has set up a theory that equal liberties relate to equal abilities with wealth status as the discriminating factor.

and that was just from page one of the introduction.

Page 2 of the introduction:

to believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome

combine that with page 1 and the citizen now has the liberty to be manipulated into poverty If he doesn't have the ability to counter the forces that seek his own wealth extraction.

Do our leaders in Washington believe in liberty?

It's not much of a stretch to say that Mr. Paul's theories on liberty merely involve the transfer of abuse from the government sector to the private sector where freedoms are challenged by ability rather than guaranteed by law.


I'll read 'Liberty Defined' further to see if Mr Paul clarifies the above.
( But he's going to have to a lot of 'tap dancing' to improve his image IMO. )

 

[Alien Allen]

Neanderthals

Gotta love em

Bless your heart

 

[Stone]

Neanderthals

Gotta love em

Bless your heart

 

[Stone]

I'm still focusing on the introduction, but I'm skipping around through the book to see how it applies.
The title of the book is "Liberty Defined" and it's difficult to pin down Paul to its exact meaning other than a reference in the introduction that reads "the definition of liberty I use is the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition, for Jefferson himself took his understanding from John Locke."

The problem with falling back on somebody else's views as a definition, is that all aspects are included. It goes without saying that Jefferson and Locke were great men of the times but even they had issues in their backgrounds that stand out in the discussion of liberty. And that would be slavery.
Jefferson was a slave owner.
John Locke was a major investor in the Royal African Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Constitution_of_Carolina
and thus also tied to profiteering through the slave trade and at least some involvement in the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina
"The Fundamental Constitutions envisioned a society that would also include both serfs (called "leetmen") and slaves."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Constitution_of_Carolina

Skipping through the book to the appendix on page 328, I find a partial list with the header "the 10 principles of a free society".
Number nine. "All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution."
This is in obvious contradiction to the actions and investments of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke.
So why is Paul using these two men to define the concept of liberty when they violate it in a most horrendous way?


This is a legitimate question. What does liberty mean to Ron Paul?
So far, I'm not seeing it being clearly defined in the book.

 

[Minor Axis]

This is a legitimate question. What does liberty mean to Ron Paul?
So far, I'm not seeing it being clearly defined in the book.

Political BS, par for the course. This is what people do. Look at the Bible. It's pick what you like and ignore the rest.

 

[Alien Allen]

Political BS, par for the course. This is what people do. Look at the Bible. It's pick what you like and ignore the rest.

ah but it works both ways

one can choose as you do to cherry pick what you dislike about Paul and ignore the rest.

 

[Minor Axis]

ah but it works both ways

one can choose as you do to cherry pick what you dislike about Paul and ignore the rest.

I basically all ready said this. But no I don't ignore the rest. I like him better than any other so called Republican candidate currently running.

 

[Stone]

I basically all ready said this. But no I don't ignore the rest. I like him better than any other so called Republican candidate currently running.

I like him better than any other so called Republican candidate currently running.

For me it's a close call...

 

[Stone]

Political BS, par for the course. This is what people do. Look at the Bible. It's pick what you like and ignore the rest.

It's pick what you like and ignore the rest.

That's ( unfortunately ) a reasonable observation.


This recently popped up on Yahoo News:
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-s-pointless-internet-presidency.html

Ron Paul's pointless Internet presidency

Ron Paul has about 900,000 Facebook likers, almost precisely the number of votes he has received this election, which he is not—you heard it here first—going to win.

Interesting read.

 

[Jaybird]

I basically all ready said this. But no I don't ignore the rest. I like him better than any other so called Republican candidate currently running.

Paul is actually the only Republican candidate that understands what true conservatism is, and the only non Neocon of the bunch. Paul could have been chosen if the party and media were not so gung-ho to drop a bomb on every village from here to Timbuktu

He is the only one(including Obama) that I could vote for without holding my nose while I do so. Sadly, I wont be able to do that come general election time, unless I vote 3rd party.

But Paul is not doing this to become the next President of the United States. He is doing it to show the Republican Party that they have forgotten what being a conservative really means. Barry Goldwater did it in 1964, and his votes were eventually counted in 1980 when Reagan took office. It may take another decade for Paul's votes to come in, but hopefully they will eventually. This country needs it.

 

[Mercury]

Ah, so you did get the book Stone. It's funny that you point out the Thomas Jefferson and John Locke thing ... it also crossed my mind.

Ron Paul shows some awesome integrity ... at a level that is unmatched by many other of our so-called representatives. He is by no means a "God" as some would like to believe but I do believe for a 4 or 8 year term he would be more helpful than hurtful to the U.S. One thing that people tend to forget is how limited the President really is in his powers ... those who fear Ron Paul do so in vain, in my opinion ... but I do mean FEAR him. Just as those who believe that this country would be turned around amazingly also forget the limitations of President.

Well ... regardless as to what happens this election, it was refreshing to see someone who would stand up and say, "Whoa ... you all are going about this the wrong way!"

 

[Stone]

Ah, so you did get the book Stone. It's funny that you point out the Thomas Jefferson and John Locke thing ... it also crossed my mind.

Ron Paul shows some awesome integrity ... at a level that is unmatched by many other of our so-called representatives. He is by no means a "God" as some would like to believe but I do believe for a 4 or 8 year term he would be more helpful than hurtful to the U.S. One thing that people tend to forget is how limited the President really is in his powers ... those who fear Ron Paul do so in vain, in my opinion ... but I do mean FEAR him. Just as those who believe that this country would be turned around amazingly also forget the limitations of President.

Well ... regardless as to what happens this election, it was refreshing to see someone who would stand up and say, "Whoa ... you all are going about this the wrong way!"

It's funny that you point out the Thomas Jefferson and John Locke thing ... it also crossed my mind.

It's definitely a contradiction.
Paul would be better to define his position in his own words rather than by 'standing on the shoulders' of historically respected men that also 'just happened' to be slave owners and slave traders.
Paul is giving mixed signals in doing so.
A lot has transpired since the founding fathers wrote their own heart-felt sentiments into the constitution......some strong issues like women's suffrage and civil rights.
Do we turn the clock back to the 'beginning' as Paul implies ....or accept the concept of correcting the wrongs and moving forward with reform rather than overthrow of the present?

Ron Paul shows some awesome integrity

I can agree with that.....but ... I see it more as a personal consideration of his character that becomes a concern the more his positions seem to conflict with human nature in regards to transferring that morality into accepted practice. Issues of the 'absolute'.
Such as the conflict in reality of abortion and social status when considering Paul's stance on welfare.
Is it practical.....does it return an acceptable result?
I don't support abortion in regards to birth control, but it seems obvious to me there is a need for concern for the welfare of newborns in a reality of poverty. And in Paul's book, he expressly denounces any form of welfare.
So...as a leader, he's now at the crossroads of contradiction again.... in preserving the liberty of a newborn while denying a safety net for those liberties of that individual.
There is no perfect answer, imo.....but there are worse decisions to follow and I get the feeling Paul is avoiding a position of practicality in order to present a dogmatic stance.


To position him above the morality of 'others' he is running against is quite easy, imo....but that's also an issue and testament to how dishonest and self serving politicians have become, in general.

but I do mean FEAR him.

I doubt any one seriously fears Paul can become the President.
He might possibly have the ability to influence the Party Platform.....but what's that worth in reality?
Politicians seem to do what ever the damn well please.... and generally, restricting only what makes them unelectable.

Well ... regardless as to what happens this election, it was refreshing to see someone who would stand up and say, "Whoa ... you all are going about this the wrong way!"

Agreed.

 

[Mercury]

To position him above the morality of 'others' he is running against is quite easy, imo....but that's also an issue and testament to how dishonest and self serving politicians have become, in general.

That is very true.

There is no perfect answer, imo.....but there are worse decisions to follow and I get the feeling Paul is avoiding a position of practicality in order to present a dogmatic stance.

I can agree with that as well. Hehe, one of my favorite quotes that I think truly shows the Human element within politics was said by Mahatma Gandhi:

"I claim that human mind or human society is not divided into watertight compartments called social, political and religious. All act and react upon one another."

 

[Stone]

That is very true.



I can agree with that as well. Hehe, one of my favorite quotes that I think truly shows the Human element within politics was said by Mahatma Gandhi:

"I claim that human mind or human society is not divided into watertight compartments called social, political and religious. All act and react upon one another."

"I claim that human mind or human society is not divided into watertight compartments called social, political and religious. All act and react upon one another."

Interesting.
That's the first I've heard of that quote.
Thanks.

If only common sense were more common..............

 

[Stone]

This book by Ron Paul is actually quite interesting.
To understand the concept of libertarianism from Ron Paul's point of view, I suggest this book is a good read. Perhaps not of liberty itself...but of how Paul projects the concept.
But it must be done with a critical eye and avoidance of the feel-good mentality it tries to promote/evoke.

The chapter on bipartisanship is quite interesting.
If you happen to be reading this book, look for comments that pertain to reform. You won't find any.
What you will find is an attack on other political ideologies, that are often deserving, but the solution appears to be wholesale rejection of those ideologies and acceptance of what effectively becomes a totalitarian dictatorship, presented as a benign entity and flies under the banner of all things... The concept of liberty.
( see my last comment )

Time for some quotes.

"People often say that what this country needs is for people in Washington to stop fighting and just get the job done. To achieve that, we need more bipartisanship. I don't agree."
Now the argument of an 'if' statement.
"If two parties with two sets of bad ideas cooperate, the result is not good policy but policy that is extremely bad. What we really need are correct economic and political ideas, regardless of the party that pushes them."
So, where are these ideas ( good or bad ) going to come from if not by mutual agreement?
It's rather obvious that Ron Paul and his book are that source.
However, he's using liberty as his guidepost without a good definition of where it's actually leading. He's not even bothering to define the concept, himself.

This isn't to say that Ron Paul hasn't anything of worth to say, he does. But he's using these issues not out of an argument for reform but for the purpose of self-promotion of his own political position. He is a politician , afterall.

"Democrats are largely and openly for government expansion, and if we were to judge the Republicans by their actions and not their rhetoric, we would come to pretty much the same conclusion about them."
I think there is a lot of worth to that conclusion.

"When the ideas of both parties are bad, there is really only one hope: that they will continue fighting and not pass any new legislation. Gridlock can be the friend of liberty"
and yet, in this book called liberty defined, Ron Paul does not define liberty in his own words. Chaos is the friend of liberty? Really?

"So-called moderate politicians who compromise and seek bipartisanship are the most dangerous among the entire crew in Washington."
Really? Viewing this statement with an open mind, it's not a stretch to see an argument in support of a totalitarian regime that is all of one mind.
While this is only up to the second page of the chapter, Bipartisanship, the concept of liberty is being structured as being non-supportive of differing points of view.

"Moderates are somehow convinced that they are the saviors of the country, rescuing us all from the effects of philosophical differences. In fact, philosophical differences are healthy because they lead to the clarification of principles."
I hope anybody reading this from the book can see the steps Paul has taken from denouncing the melding of philosophical differences in bipartisanship and presenting the concept that the differences are healthy because they lead to the clarification of principles.
This is just a line of bullshit. No one philosophical position has the perfect answer in practice.
Except perhaps, according to Paul, the search and implementation of liberty which Paul has actually used the thoughts of slave owners and slave traders to define.

"Genuine progress is going to require more confrontation, partisanship, and serious and honest discussion of the truth about government, the economy, and every sector of American life."
Sounds pretty patriotic. But if you look closely at that collection of words, the word partisanship is a contradiction to the intent of genuine progress.
Partisanship is the inclination to be supportive of one particular view.
His thought is a non sequitur. In reality, guaranteed progress cannot be achieved by eliminating all but one point of view.
But change can be achieved.


[FONT=&amp]So.....liberty is the elimination of opposing thought......Really?[/FONT]



(edit: I'm using VR on longer posts and sometimes it makes small mistakes I sometimes miss....)

 

[Stone]

The chapter " Campaign Finance Reform" is a hoot....

Paul claims the solution to bribing and buying influence is to reduce the size of government to the point there aren't many politicians left the bribe. And I do mean politicians....the people that are elected, not the bureaucrats that fulfill the daily chores.
The topic in this chapter is campaign reform, not bureaucratic bloat.

if there were less to buy through influencing campaigns, there would be a lot less since I moved to invest so much in the process.

this is incredibly childish logic. There would certainly be fewer politicians to bribe and the overhead would naturally be a lot less. But this would not reduce the influence, only the necessary costs to generate the same amount of influence.

the size of government violates the Constitution and, in particular, it's rather narrow enumerated powers (read the Constitution for yourself.......)

and don't forget to read the Supreme Court's decisions about the interpretation of constitutional law at the same time. It appears to be a lot different from Mr. Paul's version. Since Mr. Paul is not a Supreme Court justice let alone a lawyer, his opinions are merely his personal interpretations to justify his political position, not constitutional law.



Much of this short chapter is merely muddled bullshit. Anybody interested in Ron Paul's thoughts should take a close look at this short chapter. He's using an argument of freedom of speech as an argument to accept the corruption in campaign financing while at the same time arguing that a reduction of the size of the Federal Government is the solution.
Here is an example of his logic:

if the right of free speech is lost because individuals belong to corporations, then radio and TV stations, newspapers and magazines, and various groups on the Internet would be subject to prior restraint by the government.

Paul has taken the situation completely out of context. He has intentionally confused the concept of being able to freely express one's self versus one of buying influence.
[FONT=&amp]There are significant differences between expressing one's self, paying for an opinion to be expressed versus paying for an opinion to be embraced. The latter is of course, in the realm of bribery.[/FONT]


This particular chapter is an argument to reduce representation at the legislative level.
Is that really in alignment with the concept of 'liberty'?
I think not.


Read this chapter....it's quite telling if you do it objectively and ignore the emotionalism Paul tries to project.

 

[Stone]

I hope no one thinks I've forgotten about the 'libertarians' over at Heartland......

Here's an interesting article over at Deep Climate on how libertarians at Heartland buy influence and their attempt to keep these activities hidden by denial.
It's too long and involved to summarize in a paragraph other than it's a lack of integrity that Paul seems to argue to accept under the cloak of 'free speech'.

http://deepclimate.org/2012/03/08/t...e-2007-bali-open-letter-to-the-u-n/#more-4432

Tom Harris, Heartland and the 2007 Bali open letter to the U.N.

It seems ironic that secret involvements on this level could ever be aligned with seeking 'liberty' ......coming from those claiming to be defenders/promoters of the concept.

 

[Stone]

In Paul's book, Liberty Defined, the chapter 'Four Freedoms' drew my attention to recent comments by Paul.
Let's begin by stating that any argument seeking acceptance needs elements that are readily acceptable by the audience.
From there the argument can proceed with or with out logic, weighing heavily on emotions and suppositions.FDR's Four Freedoms speech went beyond the Constitution by endorsing the right to economic security and even projected these freedoms as global issues.

In Paul's book, he writes:

A free society is based on a simple moral imperative. Everyone's life is his own and the fruits of his labor should be his own as well.

This is now in the land of contradiction.
In the appendix, Paul states:

Rights belong to the individual, not groups.

This might look like sophistry, but it's an important issue.
A free society is also based upon a consensus of opinion by the members of that society.
Just the act alone of 'governing' institutes parameters and potential restraints on those members....according to the will of that society.
A free society makes these choices with out duress......but can impose duress upon the individual that operates out side the agreed upon consensus.
For Paul, this would be an issue of lost 'liberty'

Paul has implied a 'right' (freedom) to a group (society) to make a libertarian argument.
But also denies that groups have rights.

His arguments change according to convenience.

And he does this in major ways that happen to associate with this particular chapter.


To say that Paul is against welfare is an understatement.
He's rabidly against any form of social support.
And here comes another contradiction.
His support of the OWS.

The OWS isn't just a leftwing anti-business socialist movement. It does address social pressures from the recent economic melt down and argue for a greater involvement of the government in supplying economic need to those in distress.
Whether you are for or against the OWS on their politics, their core argument is about social and economic equity.
This is an issue that Paul claims to abhor right down to his very own definition of 'liberty' ( what ever that is since he's not actually defining it in this book)...........and yet gave support to the movement.

It's of note that in the Iowa caucuses, Paul's popularity was enhanced by non Republicans.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ron-paul-praises-occupy-wall-street_614967.html

He jumped to first place in the Iowa caucus polls partly because of support from people who aren't Republicans.

Interesting how Paul can so easily sell out his core values for a few more votes :cool