For Liberty(and pwnage) Ron Paul 2012 Part II

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm all for gridlock... it means that hairbrained ideas that only one party supports generally won't get passed... and good ideas that clearly need to be actioned will.

It would be wonderful if that was indeed the motivator.

The quality of the idea is usually not the decider, the way it can be played out in public to gain a political advantage often is far more important.

 

[downtown]

There is gridlock, and there is gridlock.

We haven't really had a Congress this politically polarized in decades, possibly never (in the modern era). While "gridlock" might have prevented hairbrained ideas in the past 40 years, this level of polarization may prevent compromise completely.

Then, we either get no action whatsoever (which is bad), or we get an Executive Branch power grab (which is also bad).

 

[warpus]

I disagree. Goodness, I would argue, necessarily consists in freedom (for various quasi-Aristotelian reasons that I won't get into) and can not be found outside of freedom. If what appears to be freedom is not good, it is because it does not represent real freedom.

Now, that sounds rather tautological, so let me explain. Freedom, properly understood, is a positive capacity for action; it consists in the ability to do what you want to do. It isn't merely the absence of restraints, what some have dubbed "negative liberty", because that only takes on meaning in reference to this capacity. If the British state were to criminalise turning yourself into a rainbow, it would mean nothing at all, and if the North Korean state were to expressly permit it, it would be similarly meaningless, because in neither case is this something that anyone ever had the option to do in the first place. Individual freedom is not increased or decreased one way or the other. This means that a conception of freedom only in terms of the presence or absence of restrictions is an entirely insufficient basis for a genuinely libertarian politics, and so a mechanical rejection of every item of legislation, of every state program, is not only unwarranted, but even be ultimately counter-libertarian, to the extent that it diminishes the practical capacities of a greater number of people by a greater degree. The superficial freedom of abolishing this or that legislation does not mean the amount of concrete freedom in the world will actually increase, and may well, as it so often does, mean the very opposite. Hence we say that "freedom is not always good", but in reality what we are saying is "net unfreedom is not good".

Yes, but every single instance of freedom is good?

The freedom for me to poop on the bus?
The freedom for my neighbour to walk around naked?
The freedom for you to do heroin in your front porch?

Not all freedom is of the good kind. Some of it is genuinely a bad idea.

 

[kochman]

There is gridlock, and there is gridlock.

We haven't really had a Congress this politically polarized in decades, possibly never (in the modern era). While "gridlock" might have prevented hairbrained ideas in the past 40 years, this level of polarization may prevent compromise completely.

Then, we either get no action whatsoever (which is bad), or we get an Executive Branch power grab (which is also bad).

Yeah, well... I guess Obama didn't really "reach across the aisle" when Pelosi et al were locking repubs out of committees. Kind of set the bar with that, no?

I think Romney is the type that can reach across the aisle... Perry, Santorum, no way... Gingrich, perhaps... Paul, yes, he can reach, but can he reach enough from both parties to get his agenda through?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So Obama & Pelosi didn't reach across the aisle? Mainly those two. They started it. The Republicans were ready to play, but that darn Obama *shakes fist*

Boy I hope Romney wins. I could do with more off these comments in a year.

 

[downtown]

I don't think the President really has anything to do with it, to be honest. Cantor, Reid, Pelosi, etc don't answer to him, only their constituents, which are increasingly radicalized.

 

[kochman]

So Obama & Pelosi didn't reach across the aisle? Mainly those two. They started it. The Republicans were ready to play, but that darn Obama *shakes fist*

Boy I hope Romney wins. I could do with more off these comments in a year.

Ziggy, when you lock the opposition out of the committee... that's pretty bold.
That's mainly Pelosi, but Obama should have pressured her to do differently. She may not have listened to him, and she didn't have to...
But, since Obama also wouldn't meet with the House Minority leader for something like 18 months... at all... that doesn't send a very nice message.

Not getting into "who started it?"... he campaigned on reaching across the aisle to get things done, and then did quite the opposite.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sure mate.

 

[Antilogic]

There's a big, big difference between working with and kowtowing to whatever the Republicans want.

 

[useless]

Useless... you're still foaming at the mouth about Paul being a racist?
And now quoting self-avowed racists in doing so?
You really need to re-evaluate this... seriously...

I proved he wasn't the man they were talking about.

Maybe you should actually bother to read what I typed.

MEANWHILE

More of Ron Paul's racist newsletters have surfaced

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newsletters-part-two?page=0,1

News letters in following links (PDF files!) I've picked some of my "favourites".

A letter on congressional letterhead, dated August 30, 1979, from Paul thanked a Mr. Amos W. Bruce for “the copy of the article in The American Mercury and the copies of your essays. I found them all very interesting.” The American Mercury was an anti-Semitic magazine owned by Willis Carto, one of America's most notorious holocaust deniers and the founder of The Liberty Lobby. The issue of The American Mercury Paul praised included essays entitled, “You Can't Escape the Kosher Food Tax,” “Are You Ready for the White Man's Doomsday,” and “Racism - Black African Style.”

Link: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/Aug79Let.PDF

The main story of the March 1987 Investment Letter is headlined, “AIDS – the Government Lies Again.” It attributes to a mysterious “Dr. Arnold” the claim that “AIDS can be transmitted through means other than sexual intercourse and blood transfusion, specifically saliva, tears, sweat, feces and urine.”1 The newsletter also advocated that “federal laws which force schools to accept students known to carry a fatal, communicable disease, and businesses to employ adult victims as ‘handicapped’” should be repealed. The November 1987 Political Report said that “we must also allow local school boards to ban AIDS carriers from the public schools.”2

Link1: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/Mar87InvLet.PDF
Link2: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/Nov87PolRepAIDS.PDF

The February 1994 Survival Report alleged that “Condoms do not protect against AIDS. Even if they did, there's not a person in this country that hasn't gotten the message that they should be used during sex. And it's not just any kind of sex, but the homosexual sort practiced by AIDS carriers.” It also advertised a book, Big Sister is Watching You, which “tells the true and horrifying story of the witch-lesbo-feminists who are running America.”

Link: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/SurvRepFeb94.pdf

The March 1994 Survival Report alleged that “the purpose of ‘AIDS education’” is “to keep the truth about AIDS from getting out. And this goes way back. Scientists originally named it GRIDS – Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome – until the homosexual lobby succeeded in getting the origins of this disease disguised.”

Link: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/SurvRepMar94.PDF

The July 1993 issue of the Survival Report cited the tape recording of a 911 call made by Branch Davidian leader David Koresh. “Far from revealing a crazy madman, the tapes show him to be a reasonable person, despite his alleged religious views, with a traditional American request: to be left alone.” The newsletter also asserted that “What happened at Waco was a human rights violation as serious as any that occurred in the waning days of the Soviet Union.” It further referred to “the martyrs at Waco” and said, “Lesser crimes in the past have led to the overthrow of whole governments.” In the November 1995 issue of the Survival Report, Waco was referred to as a “holocaust.”

Link: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/SurvRepJul93.pdf

Because you can't let a gem like this disappear people.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't agree with that. The 2 can't be separated that thoroughly. We can plan for the long term, but we still have to live in the short term. So we have to plan for the short term as well. They can't be separated very well.

The distinction is purely conceptual, of course, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. My point is just that you don't have to scream and holler for the demolition of the welfare state today just because you'd like to see the abolition of the state as such at some point in the future. A prisoner may one day aspire to leaving prison, but that doesn't mean he attempts to gnaw through the walls. Freedom, as I said previously, is just not that simple.

Yes. As far as I understand where Marx, or at least some other theorists of his era, went, they didn't understand that innovation is essentially an eternal condition rather than a stagnant one.

We can produce ever more outputs with the same inputs because we're just that much better at using all the inputs. (Principally labor and energy, but also land and other factors.) Now this trend is somewhat hidden behind the fact that we've had huge population increase as well. So we are using far more resources, even though we are using resources far more efficiently. And those of us in the developed world are using more resources because of our higher levels of consumption as well. But those trends shouldn't obscure the fact that we do in fact use all resources more efficiently.

All of this means that, to a large extent, we can in fact have our cake and eat it too.

So you're just using "growth" to mean "improvements in production methods", and not actually to mean "economic growth"? That seems confusing.

There are 5.8billion people in the world who's living standards disagree with you.

You really think that most people finish up their lives with outright ownership of their home, a nice little stock portfolio, a couple of bought-and-paid-for cars? Your original comment, you'll remember, was claiming that people don't have to "work their entire lives and end up right where they started". And what I'm contesting is that, for a pretty huge chunk of the world's population, that is exactly what happens, and exactly what has always happened.

 

[useless]

I... I can't stop myself, so here's two more, about racism.

The newsletters repeatedly defended and expressed support for a variety of prominent racists. The May 1990 Political Report cited Jared Taylor, a prominent eugenics advocate.1 The July 1994 Survival Report again cited the “criminologist Jared Taylor.”2

Link 1: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/May90PolRep_0.PDF
Link 2: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/SurvRepJun94.pdf

The March 1994 Survival Report warned of a “South African Holocaust.” It said, “Quite frankly, I cannot see how South Africa is going to escape a blood bath.”1 In June 1994—two months after South Africa’s first democratic election—an item headlined, “There Goes South Africa,” claimed that “Mandela is trying to appear as a moderate, and indeed he may be as the Red ANC goes.” The newsletter advocated a separate state for whites in South Africa, writing, “If everyone accepts the notion that a homeland can be created for the Palestinians, I wonder why no consideration is given by world opinion leaders to a similar situation for the whites in South Africa, as they have requested.”2

Link 1: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/SurvRepMar94.PDF
Link 2: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/SurvRepJun94.pdf

 

[Cutlass]

The distinction is purely conceptual, of course, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My point is just that you don't have to scream and holler for the demolition of the welfare state today just because you'd like to see the abolition of the state as such at some point in the future. A prisoner may one day aspire to leaving prison, but that doesn't mean he attempts to gnaw through the walls. Freedom, as I said previously, is just not that simple.

So where does that leave you? You're still stuck with the cunundrum that you don't get freedom until you band together to protect it.

So you're just using "growth" to mean "improvements in production methods", and not actually to mean "economic growth"? That seems confusing.

All wealth originally comes from ideas. Growth is both the improvement of how things are done as well as just doing more. But just doing more of the same is unsustainable. Doing more better is where any sustainability comes from. So ultimately you do things better, or you have to stop doing more.

You really think that most people finish up their lives with outright ownership of their home, a nice little stock portfolio, a couple of bought-and-paid-for cars? Your original comment, you'll remember, was claiming that people don't have to "work their entire lives and end up right where they started". And what I'm contesting is that, for a pretty huge chunk of the world's population, that is exactly what happens, and exactly what has always happened.

There are some 7billion people in the world today. Perhaps a billion of those are no better off now than they would have been 300 years ago. The second billion may be better off only in some minor ways. But do compare them to the people 300 years ago. That second billion has better life expectancy. They eat better. They have better medical care. They have some access to at least rudimentary education. The 3rd billion from the bottom have have lives that are better in most respects than all but the most extremely wealthy 300 years ago. And in many respects better lives than the kings of 300 year ago. after all, that 3rd billion have electricity, refrigerators, and the internet. And then you have 4 billion more people who are even better off than that.

So no, not all of them end up home owners with money in the bank. But they have all seen stunning improvements in their lives in the past several generations.

 

[downtown]

Ziggy, when you lock the opposition out of the committee... that's pretty bold.
That's mainly Pelosi, but Obama should have pressured her to do differently. She may not have listened to him, and she didn't have to...
But, since Obama also wouldn't meet with the House Minority leader for something like 18 months... at all... that doesn't send a very nice message.

Not getting into "who started it?"... he campaigned on reaching across the aisle to get things done, and then did quite the opposite.

The scuttle I heard from people who worked on Capitol Hill was that Pelosi and Obama weren't that close, and that Pelosi was PISSED about the way she was totally marginalized during the Bush years...so she took that out on the Republicans when they were at their weakest (2008). Locking people out of conference goes back to LBJ.

 

[Traitorfish]

So where does that leave you? You're still stuck with the cunundrum that you don't get freedom until you band together to protect it.

It's exactly the "banding together" which should concern us. My proposal is simply that it is necessary to band together outside of the state, both to offer effective pressure on the state so long as it exists, and to replace it when and if that becomes necessary. (And, for the record, I'm not talking about political parties. They don't do either job very well.)

All wealth originally comes from ideas. Growth is both the improvement of how things are done as well as just doing more. But just doing more of the same is unsustainable. Doing more better is where any sustainability comes from. So ultimately you do things better, or you have to stop doing more.

Ok? I don't disagree?

There are some 7billion people in the world today. Perhaps a billion of those are no better off now than they would have been 300 years ago. The second billion may be better off only in some minor ways. But do compare them to the people 300 years ago. That second billion has better life expectancy. They eat better. They have better medical care. They have some access to at least rudimentary education. The 3rd billion from the bottom have have lives that are better in most respects than all but the most extremely wealthy 300 years ago. And in many respects better lives than the kings of 300 year ago. after all, that 3rd billion have electricity, refrigerators, and the internet. And then you have 4 billion more people who are even better off than that.

So no, not all of them end up home owners with money in the bank. But they have all seen stunning improvements in their lives in the past several generations.

Then I suppose this is a question of "back where you started", and insofar as there are definite material gains, then, yes, you're right that the majority of the worlds population can be said to have seen some improvement. (Zizek is right when he says that we should give the devil his due and acknowledge that, until very recently, capitalism was genuinely capable of providing substantial material improvements in the lives of its participants.) So perhaps the point I should be making isn't to claim that nothing of note has changed, which is patently inaccurate (and an odd slip-up for me, because I've often made it myself against more dogmatically cynical lefties. ), but that the social content of their lives has not change much, that they still experience lives of precarious dependence, and that those few areas where it has changed- the relative decline of racism, sexism, etc.- can't be said to owe all that much to the workings of the market. So, yes, I'm wrong, but there's a seed of truth inside the apple of my silliness.

 

[kochman]

The scuttle I heard from people who worked on Capitol Hill was that Pelosi and Obama weren't that close, and that Pelosi was PISSED about the way she was totally marginalized during the Bush years...so she took that out on the Republicans when they were at their weakest (2008). Locking people out of conference goes back to LBJ.

Sounds reasonable... she's got a huge ego. I think Obama was pretty easy going with her, allowing her to basically be in charge of the ACA... but she probably wanted more and more. I remember her acting, at some point, disdainful, claiming she didn't get enough power/respect or something... can't remember the actual issue.

 

[Luckymoose]

I... I can't stop myself, so here's two more, about racism.



Link 1: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/May90PolRep_0.PDF
Link 2: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/SurvRepJun94.pdf



Link 1: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/SurvRepMar94.PDF
Link 2: http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/SurvRepJun94.pdf

This isn't racists? He is clearly saying that the whites in South Africa have as much right to be there as the blacks.

 

[Traitorfish]

This isn't racists? He is clearly saying that the whites in South Africa have as much right to be there as the blacks.

His conclusion is that white South Africans need an exclusive whites-only state, and this because Africans would wipe them out without that protection; white nationalism as a defence against the barbarous negro. What could that be other than racist?

 

[Crezth]

This isn't racists? He is clearly saying that the whites in South Africa have as much right to be there as the blacks.

If everyone accepts the notion that a homeland can be created for the Palestinians, I wonder why no consideration is given by world opinion leaders to a similar situation for the whites in South Africa, as they have requested. Or are world opinion leaders simply anti-white?

Sounds like something right off of Stormfront.

 

[useless]

Well, Stormfront does like him...