Popular vote?
Popular vote? Puh! I has more Myspace friends
(Ron Paul)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous The Segway Seals | 23% Approval Next »
» 61 comments
-
Recent Comments
No1askedme on IF YOU READ THE HEALTHCARE… PortlandMark on SEX SCANDALS No1askedme on SEX SCANDALS n10bettes on Ask Mitt Anything No1askedme on Ask Mitt Anything No1askedme on Ask Mitt Anything No1askedme on Ask Mitt Anything wyldkard on How to Reinforce One’s I… I Like Peanut Butter on Ask Mitt Anything miasaurusrex on Wanna walk into a bar 
Cheezburger Network Blog
Emospace…No one likes them anyway.
What does a doggy say? Ruff!
What does a kitty say? Meow!
What does a duck say? Ron Paul!
And with good reason, too.
iz ron pual!
FTW!
It was picked? I shoulda taken credit!
I’m sure a man that’s this busy has time to lurk the ’space.
It’s so sad to me that he wasn’t given a better chance by the public.
Oh Ron Paul, you and your simplistic libertarian theories. Libertarian’s answer to everything is, “Deregulate it, privatize it, and let the market sort it out.” Because lassez-faire capitalism has worked so damn well in the past, what with the child labor, and the 18 hour work days, and having your limbs crushed in industrial accidents and all the robber barons and whatnot.
Thankfully, Americans aren’t that stupid.
You obviously have no clue what a libertarian stands for.
Go read the libertarian party website. Then you can come back and admit I am just paraphrasing what they say. Libertarians want to create economic feudalism, with themselves as the new feudal lords and the rest of us as powerless serfs. No money to buy food? To bad, starve to death, or you could work in our factories for pennies a day! That’s what all libertarians secretly dream of. They think they are superior to everyone else and would do well under a system that lets them exploit the weak. Unfortunately for them, if their dream ever came true, the real power players in the world economy would eat them for breakfast.
This is not an accurate representation of how the market works, sans Government regulation. Yes, government should be able to give the market a boost when need be, but regulations such as minimum wage only work to drive prices and unemployment _up_.
There are good things the government has done, as well as bad things the government has done for our economy. And by the government, I’m mainly speaking of Congress, as they are the legislative body. There are also good things the government has done that have become bad things over time, as they outlive their necessity. Congress needs to get back in the game, and work for the country, not for their paychecks.
you’re intentionally over simplifying things to paint a horrific picture of the world sans government regulation. ron paul and others who espouse a slightly libertarian political philosophy are not asking for purist capitalism, and the people of this country wouldn’t stand for the kind of abuses you’re describing. Libertarianism is more about putting power in the hands of smaller governments and the people, and less power in the hands of the giant beast that is our federal government, than it is about capitalism.
you obviously aren’t politically knowledgeable enough to maintain an actual discussion, but i wanted to respond just in case anyone actually reads your posts and believes your garbage.
Oh, hey, yeah, no True Libertarian would ever believe that, right? Have you read the Libertarian Party website? http://www.lp.org. Go. Read. Here’s a quote:
—-
A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
—-
Here’s an idea, how about you learn what the Libertarian Party is REALLY about before spouting your nonsense. Maybe if you don’t believe in what your party espouses, you should PICK A DIFFERENT NAME.
….
I’m going to quote my own comment.
“ron paul and others who espouse a slightly libertarian political philosophy are not asking for purist capitalism, ”
notice how i didn’t say
“Members of the Libertarian PArty are not asking for purist capitalism, ”
you’re basing everything off of that one party line. I’m talking about politics in general, not that party. they don’t represent all people who call themselves libertarian. ron paul is republican, not libertarian, if we’re talking about party.
Well, at least you’ve made it painfully obvious that you have no idea what libertarianism (with a lowercase “L”) is. You probably Googled “libertarian” and clicked on the first link that popped up. There are many differences between libertarianism and the ideals of the Libertarian (with a capital “L”) Party, but I wouldn’t expect you to go to the effort to figure that out. Even as people have politely tried to correct your misconceptions, you insist they are “spouting nonsense.”
People like you (who know nothing yet think they do) are a big part of what’s wrong with American politics. I’d like to thank you for the mess we’re in today.
Damn smiley-faces! … They make my post look much more pleasant than I inteded it to be.
Here’s a thought: if you don’t agree with a political party, pick another name. Libertarian, big or small l, equals kookdom to the American public. Call yourselves individualist anarchists, if you must.
I know a lot more about libertarians and the history of anarchism than you do, punk. Do you know who the Boston Anarchists were? Pierre Proudhon? Max Stirner? William Godwin? I doubt you even know the history of the philosophy you espouse.
People who use the term libertarian without understanding its anarchist roots are as stupid as the punks with the mohawks who spray paint the circle A on everything.
Why don’t you look up the meaning of “Conservative”. Definitions change. Conservative used to mean balancing budgets, not going to war–ya know, being conservative! This is no longer the case. Now we have conservatives, neo-cons, libertarians, paleo-libertarians, liberals, fundamentals, and on and on. How about you stop using the term “libertarian” as “stupid” without understanding of who the person is.
Seth, stop being a communist.
And what is so bad about that quote? Read my post nearer to the bottom to see my defense against the problems you postulated.
Man, you lost me there. I do agree that libertarianism sadly has developed into some kind of cult, mostly of lawyers and business people who do not have the slightest idea of economics.
Indeed pretty much all of the great “libertarian” (that is, liberal in the original sense of the word) thinkers were aware of the limitations of market arrangements and most were advocates of moderate redistribution. Every decent economist I know has found some kind of compromise between libertarianism and utilitarianism.
What I find absolutely creepy is that people who do not publicly object to the constant legislation of morality in this country call themselves libertarians. No libertarian can be in one party with right wing nuts.
Sigh…the joys of feudalism. No, really. The 90% of people who had no concern past simple comforts/entertainment were duly rewarded for their hard work, any commoner with more than half a brain and some initiative could obtain an education through the Church and a respectable lifestyle while the duty-bound lords were under societal obligation to share their inherited bounty with all beneath them. Sure, there were failings, but there aren’t there today?
Democracy in any normal human population is a bad idea. I am definitely an elitist and I hate suffering because the people around me are too lazy, mentally incompetent or uneducated to make proper decisions. Most people can’t manage to stay out of debt or even to eat properly enough to stay at a healthy weight. Why do I then have a certain lack of faith in their political judgment?
shit shit shit, you guys! Ron Paul isn’t even Libertarian! Even though he ran Republican this election and Lib. in ‘88, you can’t really identify him with any one political party! Do some research and you’ll find he HATES party politics! He simply wants Americans to have their FREEDOM back! WAKE UP sillys!
Yeah, I suppose socialism has worked much better in the past…
this man should have been the president.
Never mind, just take a big heap of Ron Paul liberty dollars, a huge cache of weapons and enough tinned food to feed the world and go live in a commune with the other Libertarian wackjobs and wait for the inevitable Koresh-like end.
i’d rather be a libertarian wackjob than a libtard. err…wait. or neither.
paultard, libtard… I’m tard of ‘em all….
not bad…not bad at all.
So just plain retard then? Nice & traditional.
I don’t think you can be a retard untill you have been a tard.
Uhhhhh, after 8 years of Bush and 4 years of either Obama or McCain ….. yes …. disaster IS inevitable. Hopefully, sooner rather than later.
OK, I’m exaggerating, but only a little.
Agreed. Imagine balancing the budget without income tax, imagine the dollar regaining its worth, imagine the death of the war on drugs, imagine a president that actually cared about the constitution and its limits. Nevermind… too depressing.
I’ve read through the libertarian platform and I, personally, like it. I do not like Mr. Paul one bit though. I don’t see them making a real run for the Presidency, but, I can see them doing well in more local governments and congress ocationally. They don’t really have much of a handhold in my home state so I have no one there to help though.
Seth, your view of their platfrom is quite off. I think you should take a few deep breaths and reread it, this time without your biased opinions taking over before you can get to the end of a paragraph.
They are mostly just for smaller government. I don’t see why you could possibly feel that we *need* a huge government. What is so great about our administration that we need more of it?
They are for complete deregulation of markets. Complete. No environmental laws, no workplace safety laws, no child labor laws, nothing. If you are wronged, your only option under libertarianism is to bring suit. If you have the money, or are lucky enough to find a lawyer willing to work on commission who hasn’t been bought by the other side. Read lp.org. Read the platform. I quoted some of it above, but it only gets worse. Libertarians are insane.
If people stopped looking to the government for help over mundane and personal problems that they caused, all the regulations would not be necessary. If people want to make sure their food is safe, talk to the manufacturers, learn their process. If people want their kids to get a good education, talk to your educators to make sure they are taught what you want. People want to be lazy and let the big government take care of everything that they should be taking care of themselves.
If children want to work, let them. As parents, make sure they are taken care of. If a workplace is unsafe, why work there? Go somewhere else where it is safe. Eventually that place will need to change because nobody will work there. Market forces PLUS people taking care of their own problems instead of being lazy actually works.
“If a workplace is unsafe, why work there? Go somewhere else where it is safe. Eventually that place will need to change because nobody will work there.” There are several thousand years of data the pretty much prove this to be a flawed concept. Even discounting serfdom, etc, there is still the last 200 years that show this not to be the case. People often have little or no choice when working in unsafe environments.
How and why is this the case? Show me an example and why it is impossible. I Just because a majority is stupid doesn’t mean it still isn’t the right thing to do.
One of the primary rules of the market that you extol so much is that there is a nearly limitless supply of unskilled/uneducated labor. This is even more true today in a world with over 6.5 Billion people, massive shipping capacity, and instantaneous communications. A second rule of the market is that The lowest bidder will win more often than not. As a result of these two rules, for every person that leaves said unsafe workplace, there will always be an easy replacement readily available, thus keeping that company in business and able to underbid/price its competitors that have higher overhead for safety costs. As I said before, if we lived in Utopia, what you said might work. We don’t. It won.t Why do you think there was so much shipping of manufacturing overseas in the past 40 years? Because of the very rules I am describing. The RIGHT thing to do is have rules in place to a)protect workers safety (which the unions and OSHA set out to do) and b)stop providing incentives for companies to move manufacturing overseas.
That doesn’t even touch that fact that your ignorant comment about allowing children to enter the workforce contradicts your argument and reinforces mine, NOR does it address the fact that people with little skills or education seldom HAVE the option to change jobs. I used to be in a union, and I worked along side a lot of non-union guys who did similar work with twice the risk or more for half the pay. Could they leave? Sure, if they could find another job. Would their employer have a replacement the next day? Again the answer is yes.
that should say little more than half the pay.
You can call my comment “ignorant”, but that doesn’t make it so. How is it contradictory to my argument that children may work if they want?
People have options all the time to make themselves better. They’d rather watch TV and pretend life is easier.
Again, its called THINKING. A larger, more saturated workforce reinforces the notion that there is always someone willing to take your job, which reinforces my statements that your theory won’t work because you can always find employees. Children in the workforce (skipping the inherent safety hazards of having a child do many jobs), means MORE people looking for the SAME number of jobs, which contradicts your ideal that people will refuse to work for unfair wages or in unsafe conditions.
lol… Why do you keep trying to insult me? I am trying to understand what you are saying, but it helps if you state the entire argument with definitions and citations instead of just “Yeah, so you contradicted yourself. Therefore you’re an idiot and I win the argument! Hurray!”
So what if there are people that want to take your job? If you save up money, you could start your own business, which gets harder and harder these days as more and more regulations come down on people trying to start a business. The government can’t make all of this better by creating jobs. Only people can creat jobs. Children are people too and can also refuse unfair wages and unsafe conditions. And it would be the parents’ responsibility to make that happen, by default. If they don’t give a crap, well that is their posterity that they are ruining. But, again, if the children are abused or coerced, the government should step in. Coercion is an attack on our fundamental rights.
I am not insulting you, I am trying to get you to think about what I am saying. I am NOT saying it is up to the government to give you a job, OR overregulate business. I am merely stating that the models you are discussing would only work in a perfect world with altruistic people. Market Forces are cut-throat and favor the “haves” when left on their own. People won’t always do what is best for the greater good, and don’t always have options. THAT is why there NEEDS to be some degree of government intervention. Government is only even necessary because people can’t be counted on to do the right thing on their own.
“Market forces PLUS people taking care of their own problems instead of being lazy actually works.” – Care to cite precedence? In an ideal world, this would be true, but people are human, with human flaws, and as such, these concepts don’t tend to succeed in practice.
Care to show how this doesn’t work? If people stopped getting hand-outs, maybe they would get to work. This is why I never give money to people asking for it on the free-way exits. There are lots of programs to help people eat and get jogs.
I don’t need to show how it doesn’t work, I put the onus on you to show just ONE example of it actually working. You have yet to do that. Here’s reality, unemployment for the most part doesn’t occur because people are “lazy”, though in some cases it does and it is abused, it usually occurs because people lose their jobs and have few skills to find another job. This is even more true in a global economy such as we have today, where thousands of “unskilled”/”uneducated” workers have lost their family supporting jobs to people overseas who will work for less than half as much (you vaunted MARKET FORCES at work). Many of these people have no other employable skills, and are forced to either be unemployed, or work for less money than they can support a family on. THAT is what your market forces result in if not guided responsibly. I am not favoring big government, or overregulation, merely stating that your near-anarchist views are idealist and a bit flawed in the real world.
So, the government should help people that have no skills. Got it.
It’s not the government’s job to make sure everybody has marketable skills. It’s our job to do so!
And if the market forces are driving jobs overseas because they are cheaper, then that’s the market, and we need to accept that and live more within our means.
And just because it hasn’t been done doesn’t mean it won’t work. The problem is that it is impossible to run simulations on what to expect if we took away all of the government regulations. If it was possible, I believe that the market forces would drive people to want better solutions for themselves, whether that be employment, education, whatever.
Why is it that these non-lazy people have no other skills to find another job? Because they didn’t invest in it themselves. People need to know how to organize themselves to get thing done, such as leaving a company that has unfair pay.
“So, the government should help people that have no skills. Got it.” Its called COGNITIVE reading, I didn’t say that, nor did I imply it. I said that if left unchecked, the market forces (which you seem to hold up as some kind of all powerful god), will not necessarily do whats in the best interests of everyone. History has shown time and again that market forces left unchecked primarily favor the rich. You also seem to think that people always have options when its not always that simple. When are you supposed to invest in improving yourself when you lose the only job you’ve ever had, and have kids to feed and a family to provide for, and have to get back to work bringing in any income at all as soon as possible. Methinks you should get out of the classroom (I am hoping that is the reason for your apparent naivete), and see the real world a bit before you judge everyone who doesn’t have the ideal life as a lazy slob.
“…the market forces (which you seem to hold up as some kind of all powerful god), will not necessarily do whats in the best interests of everyone.”
This we agree on. It will give more to those who give more to it.
You did keep saying that all of these poor workers have “no other” marketable skills. Why should they be rewarded for not trying?
Plus, people shouldn’t be sucked so much into societal norms. That is, again, their own fault. If I didn’t have the money, I wouldn’t have a cell phone, I wouldn’t go out to dinner, I wouldn’t do a lot of things. I would rent a cheap apartment and eat Ramen day in and day out to save money. If people are starting families with little or no savings or back-up plans, that is, again, their own fault. If other people (i.e. not the government) want to step in and help out of compassion, then so be it. But why should my money go to it if I don’t think every one of those people haven’t worked as hard as they should?
I don’t think that everybody is a lazy slob, just acting more lazy than they should. It takes effort. I don’t understand why people think it’s the government’s job to make their lives better.
Why should the government put a generalized blanket over the whole country that costs a lot, when people could take care of themselves and take responsibility for their poor choices. People learn from their mistakes, unless you take away the sting of that mistake.
Oh, and this wouldn’t be the first time that I’ve been told that I’m young, naive, or idealistic. Besides, I certainly don’t judge anyone before I know them well enough to know their intentions. And I’m always happy to help them if they don’t know where else to go or what else to try.
Besides, market forces take a while to work. It’s not going to change things overnight.
One thing to keep in mind, is who and why Welfare and unemployment was started in this country in the first place. Contrary to popular belief,m the initla movements toward welfare and other social benefits were started by rich, conservative industrialists such as Rockefeller for one reason. To prevent the growth of communism and an possible eventual uprising. The fact that is improved the quality of life for thousands was more of a side effect at first. Again, I am not saying we should take responsibility for everyone’s problems (this mortgage bailout is just one example of F’ed up government), merely that there ARE valid and good reasons for such programs, when steps are taken to prevent abuse.
OK… why have laws against fraud? If people are volunteering to buy lead that is painted with a gold colour, that is a voluntary transaction. It is funny to read this in a country that even outlaws gambling.
As to your child labor example: Why outlaw armed robberies? If you are willing to hand over your money in exchange for not being shot, that is only the market.
People do not look to the government for help, they elect governments to do certain jobs, mainly stuff that the market can not efficiently take care of. Labor regulations (although certainly a tricky issue as they can easily be overdone) are mainly a valid way to reduce transaction costs. There are a huge lot of other things a functioning government could take care of that on average would make everybody better of, only that the antiquatet system in this country prevents it from doing so.
Armed robberies are coercive, not voluntary, and are therefore against the idea of freedom and liberty.
Fraud is impossible to stop. But people aren’t sold fraudulent things all the time, are they? I know that every time I buy an apple from the supermarket, I’m getting an apple. It requires my own personal knowledge of what an apple is, so that even if the bin they are in is marked “peaches”, I know it’s an apple because of its size, weight, texture. Of course personal knowledge may be less helpful for certain other transactions, but even if somebody sells you a piece of crap, then you realize it doesn’t do what it was supposed to, and then he skips town, how is the government going to magically make it all better?
Voluntary child labor is not the same thing as coercive robbery. If children are being kidnapped and enslaved, this is also coercive, and should be against the law.
Also, the constitution, as I interpret it, which said “all other things unexpressed here are left to the states to decide” means that the state can decide what’s best for its residents, not some general sweeping assumption made by our government. The problem this has caused is that every part of the united states is the same. You can get abortions anywhere, even though some states would prefer that no abortions happen in their state. You can’t have “illegal” drugs anywhere, even though some states have said that a particular drug is legal for medicinal purposes. The fact is, if it only hurts you, why do we allow the government to tell us that it’s bad for us and that we have to stop. (BTW, I think abortion should be illegal, but that’s nowhere close to happening so I don’t worry too much about it.)
Yes, robbery is coercive, but so is child labor by definition. The belief that kids cannot are not able to judge the concequence of entering in legal agreement is the reason for having a legal age. Making a child work above a ‘reasonable’ threshold is considered coercion, even if it does not involve kidnapping.
As to fraud, it can be argued that markets would take care of that in the long run, but at high costs – in the case of product safety I would say prohibitively high. Some level of regulation can help to immensely reduce transaction costs and help ensuring competition. To illustrate this: if any food producer would be forced to establish a track record with every household in order for people to trust him that he does not sell poisonous food, newcomers would be pretty much excluded from the market for all practical purposes.
In the end I assume the main question is whether you see freedom (and the constitution for that matter) as an absolute good itself or whether you support it on consequentialist grounds that it is useful. To avoid confusion, there is obvioulsy a spehere of freedom that is not touched by consequentialists. I go with the latter anytime, because the former reeks too much of ideology for my taste.
At what point is a child able to take care of themselves? The definitions that we have for children, young adults, and adults are arbitrary. So, at what point is a child being coerced, and at what point can they make their own decisions? I’d say that child labor is one of those things that should be left up to the states, but I’d venture a guess that it won’t happen very often due to the skill required for most jobs, as well as the automation of many others. Hell, the 17 year old at Taco Bell can’t get my order right. How is a 10 year old going to do better?
I’m not saying that the food producer would be forced to establish and maintain a relationship with each customer, but that’s something they can do for their more picky customers. My guess is that 95% of people wouldn’t worry about it anyways. And if things as simple as land use were de-regulated (I know this is a state issue) then people could grow things in their backyard to sell to their neighbors. One person could grow corn, another lettuce… As long as they all trust each other, what is the harm there? But, I would imagine that there are many laws that are being violated if I did this at my current residence.
I’m confused by your last paragraph, but I will say that I see myself as an idealistic realist. It sounds like a contradiction, but I see it as aiming for the stars but getting to the moon. Nothing will ever work ideally, but if you aim high and accept whatever the outcome is and learn from it to possibly do better the next time, it will bring the best possible outcome.
<3Ron Paul! I miss him ;_;
he would have been a much better candidate than barck obma
Ron Paul is the like the crazy uncle that you just sit and stare at cause they’re usually damn entertaining.
Kevin T. for President! He deserves it!
Will you McCain and Obama idiots STFU come April/May when your dream candidate shows themselves to be just as war mongering as the one we have?
I LOVE how so many Americans are screaming for change; and yet when someone comes along that actually promises REAL change, they dismiss him as a crazy old man.