Ron Paul Puns!

[GhostWriter16]

I have a hard time interpreting this as anything other than your desire for people to be unable to earn a proper wage, just so that teenagers can get jobs.

I was defining a specific problem there, but just in general, if the government forces people to pay a "Living Wage" than jobs which are not worth a full living wage will simply not exist anymore. This actually makes things worse, not better.

I'd even be fine with, in some cases, a person taking a part-time or lower than living wage job and relying on public assistance for the rest while they look for a full time job. At least they're trying to better themselves instead of freeloading.

 

[holy king]

whats your job?

 

[WindFish]

I'd even be fine with, in some cases, a person taking a part-time or lower than living wage job and relying on public assistance for the rest while they look for a full time job. At least they're trying to better themselves instead of freeloading.

Mo Ron wants to get rid of gubbermint assistance.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Mo Ron wants to get rid of gubbermint assistance.

Specifically FEDERAL government assistance. I agree with him there. Its unconstitutional at the Federal level.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Ron Paulogists and Paul-bearers don't really seem insulting like most of these. An apologist is simply one who presents an argument in order to defend something. People may have come to associate it with defending things that should not be defended, but the word itself certainly should not imply that. A Paul-bearer would simply be one who carries Paul's message.

Paulbots, on the other hand, implies that those who support Paul cannot think for themselves but simply parrot what they were programmed to say.


Most of the suggestions, including those JollyRoger made since my last post, seem pretty clearly to be insults.



I do like Ron Paul better than almost any other politician, although I certainly do not agree with him on everything.

I definitely support eliminating minimum wages. Such market manipulations are very destructive, particularly to the poor who are denied entry level positions and then stigmatized for their unemployment. I would instead grant a basic income guarantee in the form of citizens' dividends funded by taxes on pollution and on land rent. I do not accept the validity of taxing wages, but penalizing the negative externalities inflicted on others and redistributing unearned wealth is fine.

It is not really fair to say that deregulation caused the current financial problems. It would be better to say that asymmetric deregulation is to blame. Regulation is not something than can really be measured quantitatively. It is a broad category consisting of many rules working at cross purposes. Keeping those rules designed to protect businessmen from the negative consequences of their actions while eliminating the rules meant to stop them from taking dangerous risks is a terrible moral hazard. It makes sense to have some regulations in order to reduce information asymmetries and allow consumers to make economic decisions with informed consent. Complex regulations however often increase information asymmetries, by allowing those who can afford it to find and exploit loopholes. When regulations are kept simple, it is easier for society as a whole to keep a check on bad actors and harder for them to engage in regulatory capture.

 

[W|M]

X-Post

Where does the Constitution forbid interference with itself?

 

[WindFish]

Specifically FEDERAL government assistance. I agree with him there. Its unconstitutional at the Federal level.

Yeah

You're going to have to cite that.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ron Paulogists and Paul-bearers don't really seem insulting like most of these. An apologist is simply one who presents an argument in order to defend something. People may have come to associate it with defending things that should not be defended, but the word itself certainly should not imply that. A Paul-bearer would simply be one who carries Paul's message.

Paulbots, on the other hand, implies that those who support Paul cannot think for themselves but simply parrot what they were programmed to say.

That's very true, and I'm an idiot for not catching it

Most of the suggestions, including those JollyRoger made since my last post, seem pretty clearly to be insults.

Of course, that was the whole point of the thread, sadly enough. Hence why I've made no apologies for hijacking it and defending Ron Paul instead.

I do like Ron Paul better than almost any other politician, although I certainly do not agree with him on everything.

I don't either, for sure. But I agree with him about 90% of the time. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on the other hand, I agree with both less than 20% of the time.

I definitely support eliminating minimum wages. Such market manipulations are very destructive, particularly to the poor who are denied entry level positions and then stigmatized for their unemployment. I would instead grant a basic income guarantee in the form of citizens' dividends funded by taxes on pollution and on land rent. I do not accept the validity of taxing wages, but penalizing the negative externalities inflicted on others and redistributing unearned wealth is fine.

It is not really fair to say that deregulation caused the current financial problems. It would be better to say that asymmetric deregulation is to blame. Regulation is not something than can really be measured quantitatively. It is a broad category consisting of many rules working at cross purposes. Keeping those rules designed to protect businessmen from the negative consequences of their actions while eliminating the rules meant to stop them from taking dangerous risks is a terrible moral hazard. It makes sense to have some regulations in order to reduce information asymmetries and allow consumers to make economic decisions with informed consent. Complex regulations however often increase information asymmetries, by allowing those who can afford it to find and exploit loopholes. When regulations are kept simple, it is easier for society as a whole to keep a check on bad actors and harder for them to engage in regulatory capture.

Hmmm.... That's an interesting thought. I should look up how Geo-Libertarianism differs from "Normal" Libertarianism and why. Interesting stuff.

Yeah

You're going to have to cite that.

10th amendment. The ball is now in your court

 

[WindFish]

The 10th amendment says that Congress or the Executive has the power to implement programmes

Check and mate *******

 

[JollyRoger]

Ron Paulogists and Paul-bearers don't really seem insulting like most of these. An apologist is simply one who presents an argument in order to defend something. People may have come to associate it with defending things that should not be defended, but the word itself certainly should not imply that. A Paul-bearer would simply be one who carries Paul's message.

Paulbots, on the other hand, implies that those who support Paul cannot think for themselves but simply parrot what they were programmed to say.


Most of the suggestions, including those JollyRoger made since my last post, seem pretty clearly to be insults.

Ron Paulogists and Paulbearers were intended as insults.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The 10th amendment says that Congress or the Executive has the power to implement programmes

Check and mate *******

Only the ones the constitution explicitly supports.

Of course, liberals (American sense) have been manipulating the constitution ever since Alexander Hamilton and John Adams for their own anti-liberty agenda. Doesn't make it any more legal.

 

[WindFish]

Only the ones the constitution explicitly supports.

Prove it.

 

[WindFish]

Oooh

What about Lolbertarians?

 

[History_Buff]

It doesn't mean that, although a true liberal would like his ideas on a great many things. Even if we ignore the economy and foreign policy and limit "liberal" to "Agreeing with libertarians on domestic, non-fiscal issues," you should still appreciate Ron Paul's views on ending the drug war, pro-gun views, being against warrantless searches, being opposed to policies that leave 1/100th of our populace in cells, and whatnot.

Truth be told, there are a lot of good reasons you SHOULD'NT separate monetary and social freedom, but the fact that more liberals don't give him credit for his social views, and perhaps even his foreign policy views, is indeed surprising.

And I do appreciate that some of his domestic, non-fiscal policy views are ok. Ending the drug war, opposition to warrantless searches, and reducing the prison population are all good ideas. But his other domestic policies are so hilariously bad that it would make achieving those things impossible, and quite possibly be counter productive.

You absolutely can't separate monetary and political freedom. After a point, they go together hand in hand. But in the end, Ron Paul gets way too much credit for those few good ideas he does have. And they aren't exactly groundbreaking.

 

[Dachs]

Oooh

What about Lolbertarians?

That is a good one. We've used it a few times on #nes over the years.

[02:45:48] <@Thlayli> I can at least articulate what conservatives are supposed to believe
[02:45:50] <@Thlayli> I don't even...
[02:45:56] <@Dachs> they're all libertarians really ["they" being CFC's "teenage conservatives", the current topic of discussion]
[02:46:02] <@Dachs> so I suppose not EXACTLY conservatives
[02:46:03] <@Thlayli> want to know what [dung] they spout
[02:46:08] <+bombshoo> "lolbertarians"
[02:46:12] <@Dachs> yeah, lolbertarians
[02:46:12] <+bombshoo> not libertarians
[02:46:18] <@Dachs> also they're all traitors

[04:51:25] <@kraznaya> are there any true lolbertarian nesers
[04:51:54] <@kraznaya> thlayli's pretty clearly a run of a mill conservative who's adopting the latest run of the mill conservative trend of it being fashionable to claim to be lolbertarian
[04:52:32] * Dachs shrugs
[04:53:06] <@kraznaya> i feel like nesing actively discourages that
[04:53:08] <@kraznaya> since you play, you know
[04:53:08] <@kraznaya> states

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, great, another Ron Paul derail by GW ... wait, this thread is actually about Ron Paul. Never mind.

Of course, liberals (American sense) have been manipulating the constitution ever since Alexander Hamilton and John Adams for their own anti-liberty agenda. Doesn't make it any more legal.

I predict a Cutlass response to this statement.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I predict a Cutlass response to this statement.

Of course he will, and it won't work because however you want to spin it, the constitution supports constitutionalist and to a lesser extent libertarian goals. The Founders did as well, as much as could be expected at their time. They didn't support forcible redistribution of wealth. Well, except scum like Hamilton, who wanted to redistribute wealth upwards to the rich.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Can we count Thomas Paine among the founding fathers? He wasn't involved with actually writing the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, but if it weren't for his pamphlet Common Sense there is a good change that the revolution would not have gained enough support to succeed.

He also wrote another pamphlet called Agrarian Justice, which explicitly called for the redistribution of wealth from land holdings. He wanted a land value tax to be used to provide every 21 year old man with a patrimony they could use to start their own business, as well as to provide a stipend to those too old to work.

 

[Cutlass]

Specifically FEDERAL government assistance. I agree with him there. Its unconstitutional at the Federal level.

Not according to anyone who has actually taken the time to read the Constitution.

 

[useless]

I'm pretty sure dommy has taken into account that even with minimum wages, there are people who must work 2+ jobs to make a living.