For Liberty(and pwnage) Ron Paul 2012 Part II

[Abegweit]

More than you, obviously. You would be a slave to that thieving scum if it wasn't for the government placing some checks on them. You have absolutely no chance of having even the slightest shred of liberty unless people can band together as a government for self protection.

I get it. The reason that we have thieving scum bossing us around and running our lives is because otherwise we would have thieving scum bossing us around and running our lives. Rolleyes, indeed.

Hint, dood. People don't "band together as a government". It is always and invariably imposed on them. Your belief in the power of bureaucrats and politicians to protect us from thieves is truly touching but that's not how the world works. They're out for themselves and their cronies just like everyone else.

There is a reason why Ron Paul polls so well among the youth and the poor, you know. They know quite well that this system is not designed to protect them.

 

[useless]

So Ron Paul wants to protect the poor by removing what little help they get?

Hint, dood. People don't "band together as a government". It is always and invariably imposed on them. Your belief in the power of bureaucrats and politicians to protect us from thieves is truly touching but that's not how the world works. They're out for themselves and their cronies just like everyone else.

What about tribes, early kingdoms?

 

[NYHunter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_beef_scandal

This is an interesting situation.

According to this article the Department of War demanded a rushed contract for the production of a large supply at the lowest-possible price, from pre-selected corporations that already had contracts with the Army. Knowing, Secretary of War, Russell A. Alger, was favorable to their industry, the producers, all three of them, took advantage of the whole situation. The soldiers were forced, by the War Department, into accepting the food as their meal. I'm pretty sure private customers who received meat that smelled like a dead body, would not purchase said meat again. Is there any example of these producers pulling the same trick with private customers?

I am not trying to remove any blame from the corporations. But in this particular case, tragedy was the result of poorly made decisions, that can't even be blamed on lack of state regulation. Why wouldn't Alger favor the advised position of local cattle? Why wouldn't Alger order from a larger selection of producers, reducing the supply responsible per vendor? Because he favored the Chicage meatpacking industry's 3 largest corporations, and used his position of power to support them.

And never mind the fact, this situation wouldn't even have occurred if American boys were not sent to fight in an unnecessary war to begin with.

 

[Cutlass]

Tainted food is just one example of the market profiting long term by knowingly harming people. There's also tobacco, asbestos, lead in paint and gasoline, many many other examples if you care to look into it.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't see how viewing the modern institution of the state, or government, through the lens of a critique of capitalism is at all useful or accurate. Coincidence does not imply causation. They may have facilitated the rise of each other, but that does not mean that the rise of each is inherently dependent on the rise of the other.

What's the alternative explanation? Suggesting that they're a grand coincidence is pretty pissweak historiography, if I'm entirely frank, one that doesn't seem to take even the slightest account of the changes in European society over the last thousand years.

Any number of ancient empires had a pretty authoritarian and totalizing presence long before the rise of modern capitalism.

Expansionist polities aren't really the same thing as totalising social formations.

The issue is that you cannot turn back the clock. You cannot recreate these self dependent small communities that can self mediate all their disputes. It's just not a model that can be scaled up to millions of people. You have to have a long term connection to all the people involved. And that can't happen in a modern society.

Obviously. I don't know who was suggesting otherwise. But that doesn't suggest that the state is necessary, merely that new forms of organisation are necessary.

I don't. And nothing I've ever seen about the world gives me the slightest shred of hope that it could happen. I don't believe in utopias.

You believe in the just state. That's an entirely utopian notion, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Cutlass]

What's the alternative explanation? Suggesting that they're a grand coincidence is pretty pissweak historiography, if I'm entirely frank, one that doesn't seem to take even the slightest account of the changes in European society over the last thousand years.

I'm not an expert in that era of history. But consider the alternative. There was no great utopia in Europe before capitalism. It was a poor and miserable and altogether terrible place to live. Nations got bigger and more powerful with the rise of wars. Banks helped finance those wars. Later industrialization helped supply them. But the wars did at least as much, if not more, to facilitate the rise of the great nation states as capitalism did.

How is it better that people lived 35 years then and 75 now? How is it better that you were far more likely to die of violence then than now? How is it better that your lord or king could simply take all of your food and never even notice the death of your whole family? How is it better that disease, conquered by the capitalist state, killed most children? How is it better that plagues killed off whole populations? How is it better that that whole course of your life, if you lived, was decided by other people? Even your religion was decided by others, and if you didn't like it, you were killed. And if you did like it, your king's enemy would probably kill you.

Expansionist polities aren't really the same thing as totalising social formations.

In what ways are current social formations not far less totalizing than in the past when your whole life cradle to grave was predestined for you?

Obviously. I don't know who was suggesting otherwise. But that doesn't suggest that the state is necessary, merely that new forms of organisation are necessary.

TomAto tomahto.

You believe in the just state. That's an entirely utopian notion, as far as I'm concerned.

No, I don't. I am well aware that the state sucks. I just don't see anything that doesn't suck more.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not an expert in that era of history. But consider the alternative. There was no great utopia in Europe before capitalism. It was a poor and miserable and altogether terrible place to live. Nations got bigger and more powerful with the rise of wars. Banks helped finance those wars. Later industrialization helped supply them. But the wars did at least as much, if not more, to facilitate the rise of the great nation states as capitalism did.

How is it better that people lived 35 years then and 75 now? How is it better that you were far more likely to die of violence then than now? How is it better that your lord or king could simply take all of your food and never even notice the death of your whole family? How is it better that disease, conquered by the capitalist state, killed most children? How is it better that plagues killed off whole populations? How is it better that that whole course of your life, if you lived, was decided by other people? Even your religion was decided by others, and if you didn't like it, you were killed. And if you did like it, your king's enemy would probably kill you.

...What does any of this have to do with the alleged relationship between the capitalism and the modern state? All you're arguing that there's something to be said for modernity, which, well, yeah. Who is debating that?

In what ways are current social formations not far less totalizing than in the past when your whole life cradle to grave was predestined for you?

That's not what I meant by "totalising". I mean that capitalism, unlike any other historical form of society, is compelled to expand itself constantly.

TomAto tomahto.

Tomato, Mozambique. You can't seriously suggest that "the state" encompasses all forms of collective organisation ever, can you? And, if so, then what's the function of the word- given that it would apparently include ever corporation, trade union and rotary club as well as every national government?

No, I don't. I am well aware that the state sucks. I just don't see anything that doesn't suck more.

That's because, right now, there isn't. But that's no indication of what tomorrow will bring.

 

[NYHunter]

Tainted food is just one example of the market profiting long term by knowingly harming people. There's also tobacco, asbestos, lead in paint and gasoline, many many other examples if you care to look into it.

I admit to this side effect of the system I ultimately support. I would just respond by saying that I view the atrocities commited by states throughout history to be worse then that of the atrocities commited by private players. And that view is unlikely to change, no matter what good the state is capable of doing. I believe you hold the exact opposite view, which I understand and respect.

Although, for pragmatic reasons, I do support a level of regulation for the time being. A certain degree of food inspection and environmental protections should probably exist for as long as the state is going to.

 

[Cutlass]

I admit to this side effect of the system I ultimately support. I would just respond by saying that I view the atrocities commited by states throughout history to be worse then that of the atrocities commited by private players. And that view is unlikely to change, no matter what good the state is capable of doing. I believe you hold the exact opposite view, which I understand and respect.

Although, for pragmatic reasons. I do support a level of regulation for the time being. A certain degree of food inspection and environmental protections should probably exist for as long as the state is going to.

The thing is, state violence can be controlled through collective action and democracy. Not perfectly, but to some extent. Private violence can only be controlled by the state.

 

[Cutlass]

...What does any of this have to do with the alleged relationship between the capitalism and the modern state? All you're arguing that there's something to be said for modernity, which, well, yeah. Who is debating that?

So what is your argument? I keep losing your point.

That's not what I meant by "totalising". I mean that capitalism, unlike any other historical form of society, is compelled to expand itself constantly.

Grow or die. The alternative is endless stagnation.

Tomato, Mozambique. You can't seriously suggest that "the state" encompasses all forms of collective organisation ever, can you? And, if so, then what's the function of the word- given that it would apparently include ever corporation, trade union and rotary club as well as every national government?

There is a saying used in the study of public policy. Probably used elsewhere as well. "The perfect is the enemy of the good". What that means is that the endless searches for, and diversion of resources to the search for, are obstacles to making things better in concrete ways now.

I don't believe there is a perfect. Humans are involved, therefor perfection is not.

And, you know, the people who oppose "good" are every bit the advocate of the "perfect" as the idealists are. Effectively they are much more serious enemies. The search for the "perfect" is a strategy for preventing the "good". We saw a lot of that last year in the health care debate in the US. We see it constantly in environmental debates. But it exists in many other debates as well.

We have something that is far from perfect. But it is better than anything anyone else has ever come up with. We can work to improve it and fight those who would dismantle it. Or we can throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That's because, right now, there isn't. But that's no indication of what tomorrow will bring.

Let me know when you have something concrete. I'm not going to stop wanting to improve what we have and consider replacing it with something else until I see proof that it can work and be better. So far no one even has a theory that's as good, much less better, than what we have now.

 

[Antilogic]

This is an interesting situation.

According to this article the Department of War demanded a rushed contract for the production of a large supply at the lowest-possible price, from pre-selected corporations that already had contracts with the Army. Knowing, Secretary of War, Russell A. Alger, was favorable to their industry, the producers, all three of them, took advantage of the whole situation. The soldiers were forced, by the War Department, into accepting the food as their meal. I'm pretty sure private customers who received meat that smelled like a dead body, would not purchase said meat again. Is there any example of these producers pulling the same trick with private customers?

I am not trying to remove any blame from the corporations. But in this particular case, tragedy was the result of poorly made decisions, that can't even be blamed on lack of state regulation. Why wouldn't Alger favor the advised position of local cattle? Why wouldn't Alger order from a larger selection of producers, reducing the supply responsible per vendor? Because he favored the Chicage meatpacking industry's 3 largest corporations, and used his position of power to support them.

And never mind the fact, this situation wouldn't even have occurred if American boys were not sent to fight in an unnecessary war to begin with.

Well, if you are looking at the private customers, I don't know the rates of food poisoning these already adulterated foodstuffs caused, etc., but I can give other examples (in addition to Cutlass' list). Coffee, around the turn of the century, was decaffeinated with benzene (a carcinogenic, also causes tons of other issues, and it was known to be dangerous for years). Paint thinner (also toxic) was used in yellow mustard products for consistency. Customers got poisoned by that stuff for years until the FDA stopped it.

The other problem with what you said is that customers may not have the choices you presume they would. When shelves can be stocked for a low cost with adulterated and toxic products, it forces "clean" producers out of the market. A customer may have the choice of 5 canned beefs on the shelf, but they all have the same preservatives, toxins, etc. This is particularly true in the ice cream industry, if you look back at the 20s and 30s.

Guess it's time to go to the pastures and get my own fresh beef. But wait! How can I do that if I live in a city, as did millions of other poor Americans did at the turn of the century, and get out to the countryside to get fresh beef? Not everybody has a car yet. Trams don't go out there. And if I were to take a train or something, maybe finding a pasture eventually depending on what city I was in, it's not like there is readily available refrigeration to keep my meat fresh before I get back to the city. So it's likely to go rancid and foul as well before I can cook it. And where can I find time to take a joyride to the country for fresh beef when I'm working 12 hours a day?

Finally, yes, the Army is one of those unique cases. It often requires masses of supplies, manpower, and equipment at a moment's notice in places with funny-sounding names. That's kind of the nature of that business. It doesn't excuse poor supplying, though, and we shouldn't change the subject or distract ourselves by talking about how justified that war was.

 

[Quackers]

We have benzene in our lemonade in Blighty.

 

[Tahuti]

The thing is, state violence can be controlled through collective action and democracy. Not perfectly, but to some extent. Private violence can only be controlled by the state.

That's incredibly naïve. State violence can never be restrained unless the state has no interest in doing so. It just happens, even without consent of legislators. Just like with private violence, state violence can only be contained when confronted externally.

 

[useless]

Mean while, some Ron Paul supporters show their level of sanity and deceny.

Jere Brower, his wife Clara, and his 4-year-old daughter Ana, have a very good reason to believe Texas Congressman Ron Paul when he said people view his supporters as "dangerous."

The 38-year-old Atlanta man and his family have been targeted by militant Ron Paul supporters, one of whom threatened to "kneecap" him, then rape his wife and young daughter. Mr. Brower said he has also received death threats from supporters of Ron Paul.

The trouble started when Brower and some of his Facebook friends decided to have a laugh over Ron Paul's ties to racist and anti-semitic groups.

 

[Quackers]

It all happened on the internet though so it's ok.

 

[amadeus]

Mean while, some Ron Paul supporters show their level of sanity and deceny.

Well, that decisively proves that Paul supporters, and by extension, Paul himself, are crazy.

Since I'm pro-sanity, I'm going to vote for one of the guys that's going to sign bills allowing the indefinite detention (but thankfully, promising never to use it!) of Americans and bomb Iran for maybe trying to get a weapon that we have thousands of.

 

[useless]

If you actually bothered to read my post dude, you see that I qualified it with "Some", not all, or the man himself.

But that's fine dude, I'll let that slip and I shall forgive you for it.

I'm glad that you're going to do that, since after all, saying I support racism, whilst openly supporting a candidate who is an avowed racist, makes racist statements, has racist newsletters, openly courts racists, has racist policies and basically wants to eliminate what little social progress there is for black people, would be incredibly hypocritical of you.

 

[amadeus]

I stand 100% behind what I wrote.

 

[useless]

Shame Ron Paul couldn't do that.

 

[mangxema]

The other problem with what you said is that customers may not have the choices you presume they would. When shelves can be stocked for a low cost with adulterated and toxic products, it forces "clean" producers out of the market. A customer may have the choice of 5 canned beefs on the shelf, but they all have the same preservatives, toxins, etc. This is particularly true in the ice cream industry, if you look back at the 20s and 30s.

Also, you have to consider how many different products a person uses in a day. It would be very hard to determine exactly what it is that made you sick. Obviously in the can-of-death-meat case, it should be fairly obvious, but what if the condition builds over time? An intelligent businessman would surely avoid such blatant cases if possible. In fact, it seems pretty clear from the wiki link that part of the reason the food was so bad was that they knew the army would buy immediate. And how would the market properly punish the offending product anyway, when they really aren't sure who they they should be punishing?

I would consider myself to have a libertarian nature, but I have absolutely no problem with food regulations such as these--in fact, I'm rather surprised that this became a point of contention--as they keep the market honest. Otherwise you don't know what you're getting. If everything is disclosed, you can wash your hands of it and leave people to make their own choices; without this disclosure, though, you have to accept that people will screw each other over, because they can totally get away with it.