Rand Paul, Libertarian kook.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Trying to define "Libertarian" as something its not is often a "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.
Nothing makes me smile more then describing some truly idiotic position to a Libertarian, only to have them invariably say:
"We he isn't a REAL Libertarian"

Reading the comments of people like "Lib117" (such an original name) remind me exactly of why these peoples philosophy so often simply cannot be applied to the real world.

The basic beliefs by Libertarians (And feel free to dispute these Lib117) are fundamentally.
Anything the Government does, the private sector can do better.
Without Government oversight, the Private sector is free to be more productive.
Regulation of the Private sector will be done by "The People" who would push for changes if they see problems.

Two out of three of these positions are distinctly untenable.
There are several services the government provides that the public sector would be utterly Incapable of doing simply because they do not produce virtually ANY revenue. You can NOT make money building an international Highway system, Or laying owing hundreds of miles of swearer and water pipes in a city.
As for Regulation, I love Libs statement which Bobalot has already torn apart.

Yes Society is currently "Outraged" at BP and calling for reform. Has it changed anything? Will it change anything? Most likely not. BP's stocks have soared through this and continue to churn Profits at a ridiculous level.
More to the pinpoint, in a Truly Libertarian world, as bobalot said, such 'Peoples Regulations" only happen AFTER a company screws up. In a Libertarian world there is NOTHING preventing a chemical company from dumping tons of Toxic waste in a wetland, other then the threat of "Public outrage" AFTER it happens.

Naturally I invite Lib to dispute any of these claims.. but I doubt it.

[Thanas]

Your ancestors, the (so-called) classical liberals* (what Milton Friedman identified directly with his libertarianism, so I feel the connection is fair), spent their energies trying to preserve the barbarism of the Gilded Age and defend the bosses and plutocrats in their brutal strikebreaking and anti-labor harassment.

*A lot of people acknowledge this intellectual academic history convention, but I don't see why its orthodoxy. Many of the original classical liberal theoreticians (such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, in The Limits of State Action, an essential classic libertarian work) emphasized the authoritarianism and oppression of the State in forcing people to do things not for their own ends and purposes, but for its Own, under coercion. The same reasoning could suggest the vast inequalities and conglomerations of private economic power today, and labor relations with them.

Could you elaborate here a bit more? Because I fail to see how von Humboldt is connected to the gilded age.

[Temujin]

Well he's backpedaling furiously now, to the increased benefit of his opponent.

Conway on Rand Paul: 'he's clearly backpedaling'

Washington (CNN) – The Democrat hoping to be Kentucky's next senator apparently smells political opportunity in recent comments from his opponent, Rand Paul.

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway spoke about his Republican opponent's views on the Civil Rights Act and the American with Disabilities Act in a Friday interview on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.

In an interview earlier this week on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show, and other recent interviews with the Louisville Courier Journal and other outlets, Paul suggested that the landmark federal anti-discrimination legislation should not apply to private businesses. Critics have seized on his comments and suggest that Paul would consent to private businesses, such as restaurants, refusing to serve African-Americans and other groups.

In a Thursday interview with Blitzer, Paul said the nation's segregationist past is a "stain on our history," and said he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act had he been in the senate in 1964.

But his opponent said that does not douse the firestorm surrounding Paul.

Conway told Blitzer, "Rand Paul claims to be running as an outsider. But on this issue here in the last 24 hours on your show, he pulled the good old Washington flip-flop."

"...he's clearly backpedaling because he's seen the national firestorm that he has caused," Conway added. "What's clear from what he has said repeatedly, up until your program yesterday, is…he's rejecting a fundamental provision in the Civil Rights Act that says that if - if you're providing a public accommodation, if you're a restaurant or you're a hotel, that you can't discriminate based on race."

Conway is also seizing on Paul's views about the American with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation and other areas.

In the Thursday interview, Paul told Blitzer he was not sure if he would have voted for that act, saying he is in favor of accommodating people with disabilities in the workplace.

But Paul, and eye surgeon and first time political candidate, added, "...let's say you have a local office and you have a two-story office, and one of your workers is handicapped. Should you not be allowed maybe to offer them an office on the first floor? Or should you be forced to put in a $100,000 elevator? I think it sounds like common sense that you should be allowed to give them a first floor office."

Conway told Blitzer, "I mean what's he saying to people with disabilities - that just take your office on the first floor? "If you have colleagues with whom you need to interact upstairs, you, you can't go up there? We don't need to put a ramp or an elevator? What's he saying to the veterans that are coming back from these two wars and are disabled?"

Conway summed up Paul's view on ADA as a "very callous" and said they are "outside of the mainstream."

Conway also weighed in on Paul's Friday comments, on ABC, where he criticized the Obama administration's response to the Gulf oil spill disaster.

In the Good Morning American interview, Paul said, "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, you know, I put my boot heel on the throat of BP. I think that sounds really un-American and his criticism of business - I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill."

To that, Conway told Blitzer, "You know, talking about what's un-American, BP is a huge international conglomerate. And saying that the administration shouldn't have its boot heel on their throat, BP needs to - to pay for that cleanup."

"In the Senate, we don't need another senator who just stands up for the corporations. I'm interested in standing up for the people of Kentucky. There are people in Kentucky who are scared to death that the government somehow is going to be left with a bailout tab for this Gulf oil spill. And so he's standing up with big business instead of standing up with people who need help," Conway added.

Conway edged out Kentucky Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo in Tuesday's Democratic Senate primary. Paul trounced Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the GOP contest.

–CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby contributed to this report

And for shits and giggles I also came across this (Bolding mine)

Rand Paul: Radical Ayn Rand rookie
May 23, 2010|By Clarence Page

I was a little disappointed to hear that Rand Paul was not named after Ayn Rand. It would have made sense for his famously libertarian dad, Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, to name young Rand after the famous ultralibertarian author. It would also be ironic, now that victory in Kentucky's Republican Senate primary has transformed young Rand's Randian libertarianism from a guiding light into a stumbling block.

It turns out that the Bowling Green, Ky., eye doctor's real name is Randal Howard Paul. In a video that he posted on the Web, he explains that his wife dubbed him "Rand" for short and it stuck — although he has thoroughly enjoyed the myths and speculation about his name.

Besides, he acknowledges, he has been a fan for many years of the perennially best-selling author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." That gives young Paul and me something in common. I, too, was a fan of Ayn Rand. Then I grew up.

Like J.D. Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye," Ayn Rand offers much that connects with the adolescent mind, especially of teenage boys. She opposed national government funding or management or regulation of just about everything except a standing army and, maybe, certain police functions. That meant she opposed the draft, taxes and prohibitions against alcohol, prostitution, recreational drugs and anything else that didn't hurt anybody but the knuckleheads who participate in it.

For teen guys, what's not to like about that? Rand's books were a big hit in my high school, especially among us dweebs on the debate team, student newspaper and chess club. As my own college-age son has since demonstrated with his futile arguments for "freedom" against mom and dad's "fascist oppression," reading Ayn Rand can be as much fun as defying your parents without worrying about getting grounded.

But running for public office, as Rand-fan Rand Paul is learning, is the right time to put aside childish things to reconcile one's ideology with other people's reality.

Paul failed to pull that off when, a day after clobbering the GOP-endorsed candidate, Paul let himself muse on MSNBC's " Rachel Maddow Show" about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rights of businesspeople to discriminate. Paul repeatedly declared his support for the intent of the law, but he could not bring himself to support a key provision in the law.

That was the provision that banned discrimination by restaurants, hotels, theaters, lunch counters and other public accommodations. Opening up this long-settled area of law might have scored points in a law school class. But in a political campaign, saying you favor the law's intent without favoring the law is like saying you'll do anything to lose weight except diet or exercise.

By the next morning, Paul was claiming he was sandbagged by Maddow's civil but persistent questions. His congressman dad dutifully fumed that "loony liberals" should lay off his son. The family that brays together stays together, but this was no gaffe or "gotcha." It was a significant revelation of how this candidate thinks.

Or not. As Paul backpedaled in subsequent interviews, it became quite clear that he apparently had not really thought very much about issues like race and civil rights versus property rights, beyond the easy one-size-fits-all categories of libertarian dogma.

Paul's amateurism showed itself again Friday morning. As pressure mounted on the Obama administration to take charge of BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Paul on ABC's "Good Morning America" decried the administration's attitude as "I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP" and said the administration "sounds really un-American" in its "criticisms of businesses."

With many Americans clamoring for the White House to move aggressively to stop the thousands of barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf, one might think this was not the best time for an aspiring political candidate to rush to the defense of the oil company.

As a budding politician, Rand Paul obviously is a work in progress. Kentucky voters will decide whether they want to assist in his on-the-job training. For the anti-tax, anti-Big Government tea party movement that has embraced him as a champion, Paul's amateurism reveals a big challenge. It's easy to complain about incumbents. It's not so easy to come up with workable alternative ideas that won't make voters gag.

Clarence Page is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/pagespage

cpage@tribune.com

Previously missed hearing about daddy coming to his defense. Probably figures he can use that GOP cred that keeps showing up in certain polls to pull little Rand's fat from the fire.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Your ancestors, the (so-called) classical liberals* (what Milton Friedman identified directly with his libertarianism, so I feel the connection is fair), spent their energies trying to preserve the barbarism of the Gilded Age and defend the bosses and plutocrats in their brutal strikebreaking and anti-labor harassment.

*A lot of people acknowledge this intellectual academic history convention, but I don't see why its orthodoxy. Many of the original classical liberal theoreticians (such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, in The Limits of State Action, an essential classic libertarian work) emphasized the authoritarianism and oppression of the State in forcing people to do things not for their own ends and purposes, but for its Own, under coercion. The same reasoning could suggest the vast inequalities and conglomerations of private economic power today, and labor relations with them.

Could you elaborate here a bit more? Because I fail to see how von Humboldt is connected to the gilded age.

I'm just saying his point about free labor could be taken as equally true of his era as it is of wage slavery and labor relations under an industrialized capitalist society. I know its not a conventional relationship drawn, but I don't think its completely implausible. Obviously I know that's not what he personally meant, clearly.

"…man never regards what he possesses as so much his own, as what he does; and the labourer who tends a garden is perhaps in a truer sense its owner, than the listless voluptuary who enjoys its fruits…In view of this consideration, it seems as if all peasants and craftsman might be elevated into artists; that is, men who love their labour for its own sake, improve it by their own plastic genius and inventive skill, and thereby cultivate their intellect, ennoble their character, and exalt and refine their pleasures. And so humanity would be ennobled by the very things which now, though beautiful in themselves, so often serve to degrade it…But, still, freedom is undoubtedly the indispensable condition, without which even the pursuits most congenial to individual human nature, can never succeed in producing such salutary influences. Whatever does not spring from a man’s free choice, or is only the result of instruction and guidance, does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature; he does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness…"[emphasis for clarity mine]

I don't see how its hard to imagine or consider positions such as these as much more meaningfully, predecessors of the left-libertarian tradition, than the conventional classical liberal or North American right-libertarian traditions. Certainly it seems nigh-impossible to imagine such defenses in principle of free labor among many eager apologists and ideologists for capitalism, rightly or wrongly.

[Terralthra]

Please stop highlighting things with yellow text. It makes it impossible to read on the low-bandwidth skin. Yellow on white is really horrible contrast. If you need to emphasize something, I suggest bold or italic.

[Crossroads Inc.]

No further appearance by the one post Libertarian?
Big shocker...

In other News , Sarah Palin, surprise surprise, defends Rand Paul from "Gotcha" Journalism from the "Lame Stream Media"

LINK

Gotcha journalism for Sarah Palin, Rand Paul and Sarah Ferguson?
George Harris Kansas City Star Reader Advisory Panel 2008

So far at least, the (former?) Duchess of York Sarah Ferguson hasn’t complained about the gotcha journalists who taped her offering access to ex-husband Prince Andrew for gobs of money.

But maybe Sarah Palin will, as she did on behalf of Rand Paul, who couldn’t escape the questioning of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow about his desire for private business to be free of governmental restrictions on discrimination. Palin thought the interview was just more gotcha journalism.

To his credit, even Rand Paul didn’t complain about Maddow’s journalistic tactics. But believe it or not, there are articles in the British media questioning whether the Ferguson expose’ was justified in law and in the public interest.

Ferguson apologized for a “lapse in judgment,” an apology that in itself deserves an expose’. She had an initial meeting with the disguised journalists then met with them again to seal the deal and collect a down payment. Hardly a lapse, I think. More like a premeditated sleazy, immoral if not illegal plunder. Does a news organization have to prove a story will actually benefit someone if the story is true and interesting?

Ferguson was obviously tipsy in the videotape, and in some quarters that provides some excuse for “bad judgment.” Not in my quarters though. Then, Ferguson said, she had financial problems. Ah, that explains it.

Whatever. The Palin, Paul, Ferguson encounters with the media do invite some examination of the ethics of journalism. What is an unfair invasion of privacy? What is an unfair question?

It’s reported that an investigative journalist is moving in next door to Sarah Palin. It’s not illegal, and the Palins by now can probably afford to live wherever they want, courtesy of the celebrity they’ve achieved through the evil media. But still. Would anyone really want to live next door to a reporter watching one’s every move?

Was it a gotcha question when presidential candidate Michael Dukakis was asked how he’d react if his wife Kitty were raped? Was it a gotcha question when vice-presidential candidate Dan Quayle was asked what he would do first in the event he became president?

Would it be a gotcha question if Maddow had asked Dr. Rand Paul, an opthamologist, if he thought the government was meddling by requiring medical doctors to be licensed? I mean, shouldn’t everybody with a laser be entitled to perform eye surgeries without some government busybody interfering?

Many so-called “gotcha” questions have an agenda, an underlying belief. They are not neutral, information seeking questions. Maddow clearly believes that civil rights protections are a good thing and that Rand Paul’s libertarian philosophy would harm minorities.

The Ferguson journalists must have believed that Ferguson was betraying the public trust by selling access to her ex-husband and that this was wrong.

Katy Couric apparently believed that Sarah Palin wasn’t very well read and that presidents should be well informed, so she asked Palin about her reading habits.

The Dan Quayle and Michael Dukakis gotcha questions, I think, revealed important information about the candidates.

For my money, in these days when candidates hide as much as possible from tough interviews, every opportunity to ask tough questions is good. The interviews I dislike are the ones that don’t allow the subject time to answer. The Chris Matthews show Hardball often has this problem.

But generally I think politicians shouldn’t whine about journalists who ask probing, even biased questions.

What do you think?



Read more: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/9126#ixzz0p0LWRSaq

[The Spartan]

No further appearance by the one post Libertarian?
Big shocker...

Check Parting shots. He was a knobbyboy sock puppet.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Damn thats almost a shame, We haven't had a good Libertarian Chew-Toy in a while

[Thanas]

*snip*

Thanks for that. I misread your original statement as seemingly indicating that Humboldt was in favor of the gilded age. Sorry about that.

[Iosef Cross]

Oh, the man is "Rand Paul", not Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. Rand Paul is self described as "constitutional conservative", i.e. favors big business in expense of society. That's explained.

There's no functional difference between the two, it's just different ways of saying right-libertarians with delusions of how economics and international relations work.

wtf is right-libertarians?

And no, there is a very real difference between libertarians and pro big business conservatives. A very large difference.

[Samuel]

Right-libertarians are American libertarians. Left-libertarians are the origional socialistic ones.

And no, there is a very real difference between libertarians and pro big business conservatives. A very large difference.

Pro-big business conservatives would free slaves (American Republican party)?

[Iosef Cross]

No, you're an imbecile who couldn't even attempt to refute the content of my statement. Furthermore, I never said anything remotely like "all other ideologies are evil", which just shows how juvenile and emotionalist your--well, what you think passes for thought--thought is. It is but childish ranting and fetishizing of fancy-sounding philosophical terms, without the depth of understanding of their meaning and the real world around you.

You didn't said it explicitly that all ideologies different from your's are evil.

But your tremendous ignorance of anything related to the social sciences appears to be the source of your hugely stupid remarks.

To say that libertarians are in favor of the interests of a group of society by using the power of governments to protect and prop up this group is to not understand anything about the subject.

You appear to be a total ignorant of this subject, from the sample of posts that I read from you.

You appear to be a usual socialist retard with thinks that socialism is the only ideology in favor of the "common man" and that all other political positions hide some evil interests in them.

You are of the type that links the colonial onslaughts with capitalism. That links the exploitation of the populations of the third world with capitalism.

That's the usual crude Marxist position of 17 year old socialist retards. We have a loot of your types in Brazil as well.

Oh, the man is "Rand Paul", not Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. Rand Paul is self described as "constitutional conservative", i.e. favors big business in expense of society. That's explained.

Hey puss puss, why don't you man up on the thread you tucked your tail between your legs and ran away on like a little bitch after being spanked by me and Stas? You've have a big mouth for having such a yawning pussy.

What? I gave you a set of arguments.

I don't care to read about your thoughts (absence of thoughts) on these arguments. It is futile to argue with you and I will not learn anything reading anything that you write about political/social/economic matters.

It is like arguing with a young earth creationist about evolution.

[Iosef Cross]

Right-libertarians are American libertarians. Left-libertarians are the origional socialistic ones.

The word libertarian is used today in the US for the political positions associated with classical liberalism.

The modern libertarians are a bit more radical than the original classical liberals, thought.

While modern "liberals" are social democrats are have little to no influence from classical liberals.

The creation of the libertarian movement was the result of the destruction of the classical liberal position by the mid 20th century in the US.

[Iosef Cross]

Certainly. Rational choice theory was pioneered by libertarian economists,

wtf do you call "rational choice theory"?

Because rational choice analytical reasoning was used pretty much by Aristotle. Would you call Aristotle a "libertarian"?

[Iosef Cross]

Trying to define "Libertarian" as something its not is often a "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.
Nothing makes me smile more then describing some truly idiotic position to a Libertarian, only to have them invariably say:
"We he isn't a REAL Libertarian"

He is not. At least not his position in this matter.

Reading the comments of people like "Lib117" (such an original name) remind me exactly of why these peoples philosophy so often simply cannot be applied to the real world.

Of course

The basic beliefs by Libertarians (And feel free to dispute these Lib117) are fundamentally.
Anything the Government does, the private sector can do better.

The private sector has always the tendency to be more efficient than the government.

Without Government oversight, the Private sector is free to be more productive.

You mean limitations of the scope of entrepreneurial action? Of course.

If you mean regulations that impede companies from physically hurting other people? That's not the case.

Regulation of the Private sector will be done by "The People" who would push for changes if they see problems.

There will be no "regulation" in this sense. In this sense

Two out of three of these positions are distinctly untenable. There are several services the government provides that the public sector would be utterly Incapable of doing simply because they do not produce virtually ANY revenue. You can NOT make money building an international Highway system, Or laying owing hundreds of miles of swearer and water pipes in a city. As for Regulation, I love Libs statement which Bobalot has already torn apart.

If people value something, they will be willing to pay for it.

Only because you do not have the entrepreneurial capacity of discovering ways of making people pay for some type of service (highway system), doesn't mean that it is impossible for anybody to discover it.

Yes Society is currently "Outraged" at BP and calling for reform. Has it changed anything? Will it change anything? Most likely not. BP's stocks have soared through this and continue to churn Profits at a ridiculous level.
More to the pinpoint, in a Truly Libertarian world, as bobalot said, such 'Peoples Regulations" only happen AFTER a company screws up. In a Libertarian world there is NOTHING preventing a chemical company from dumping tons of Toxic waste in a wetland, other then the threat of "Public outrage" AFTER it happens.

From my understand of libertarianism, if a company drops several tons of toxic waste in a wetland, that wetland would be property of somebody, and hence, he would have to pay to use it, or more probably, wouldn't be able to use it.

In an ANCAP world, the functions of the state in providing security and justice would be carried over by private companies. These companies would prosecute the company that dumped the toxic waste.

In a minarquist world the state would do the same that they do in today's world.

[Ritterin Sophia]

wtf is right-libertarians?

Exactly what it sound like. So-called 'Libertarians' with a socially conservative bent. For example according to this (I hope you will trust the man's own 2010 election website?) Rand Paul is looking to repeal Roe V Wade, if he were a true 'Libertarian' he would oppose any initiative that infringes on the rights of any woman regarding their own body. Another example, Daddy Ron doesn't believe in Church-State Separation and believes there's a war against religion, if he were a true libertarian he would be a staunch ally of atheists everywhere in support of the Establishment Clause, reasoning that forcing religion upon people infringes their rights. Right-Libertarianism.

[Alphawolf55]

You're right about the latter, but the former is slightly flawed. Remember, libertarianism relies a lot "Do what you want as long as it hurts no one", this means to some libertarians abortion isn't a strictly private matter at a certain point because the fetus is considered to them to be a person. This is also why there actually are some libertarians who do believe in environmental regulations.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The private sector has always the tendency to be more efficient than the government.

Oh really now?

You mean limitations of the scope of entrepreneurial action? Of course.

If you mean regulations that impede companies from physically hurting other people? That's not the case.

Yes it is, I suggest you learn about George Pullman and look into the history of West Virginia around 1920, specifically the Coal Wars.

[Samuel]

To say that libertarians are in favor of the interests of a group of society by using the power of governments to protect and prop up this group is to not understand anything about the subject.

What ever you believe, that is the result of eliminating wealth redistrabution in a society- a concentration of money and political power in the hands of the wealthy.

You appear to be a usual socialist retard with thinks that socialism is the only ideology in favor of the "common man" and that all other political positions hide some evil interests in them.

Er... isn't socialism an economic doctrine?

You are of the type that links the colonial onslaughts with capitalism. That links the exploitation of the populations of the third world with capitalism.

Of course! Because the government is more inefficient it would never have been able to carry out colonialism without the backing of private corporations

Current exploitation is probably not the fault of capitalism as much as massive poverty.

That's the usual crude Marxist position of 17 year old socialist retards. We have a loot of your types in Brazil as well.

The US has so few communists their party disbanded. You do have nutty leftists, but marxists are rare.

wtf do you call "rational choice theory"?

Because rational choice analytical reasoning was used pretty much by Aristotle. Would you call Aristotle a "libertarian"?

He said invented, not that it is a requirement to be a libertarian. Rational choice theory is the belief that individuals know their desires and work to maximize their utility from the options available to them.

The private sector has always the tendency to be more efficient than the government.

Depends on the field. While you could say politics intervene with government organizations, large enough companies suffer from it as well. Many of the flaws of government apply to sufficiently large corporations- the difference is that when they are inefficient enough (assuming a functioning enough market) they can reform or be replaced while the government doesn't have to do that. It still does reform. but how well it does so depends on the political leadership. Aren't you glad you get to choose them?

If you mean regulations that impede companies from physically hurting other people? That's not the case.

Parts of this are rather complicated though. For example, pollution- how much is a company allowed to pollute? Are they allowed to point out that people put a lower price tag on their own lives and so they shouldn't be held to extremely stringent standards? What about blackballing labor organizers? What about manipulating labor supply to depress wages?

If people value something, they will be willing to pay for it.

Only if they have the money.

Only because you do not have the entrepreneurial capacity of discovering ways of making people pay for some type of service (highway system), doesn't mean that it is impossible for anybody to discover it.

Oh, it is perfectly possible. You can install a device onto cars, have people pay into a fund and set up stations on the highway entrances to see if they are registered. This is alot less efficient than the government running the highways themselves though. It doesn't have to pay the large observation overhead.

From my understand of libertarianism, if a company drops several tons of toxic waste in a wetland, that wetland would be property of somebody, and hence, he would have to pay to use it, or more probably, wouldn't be able to use it.

No one owns the sky- Burn baby burn!

In an ANCAP world, the functions of the state in providing security and justice would be carried over by private companies. These companies would prosecute the company that dumped the toxic waste.

I see no problem with giving companies access to military grade hardware for usage against civilian populations. What could possibly go wrong- I mean, it isn't like they have the incentive to be brutal and cheap to keep people in line... oh wait. Yeah, our current military has problem with the occasional nutjub- a military geared to attracting them... well, I guess being able to rape people who haven't made their payment would keep the trooper wage demands down. Unless they don't have a monopoly in which case it goes from cartoon villiany to our favorite kind of war between the power company and the phone company.

[Illuminatus Primus]

wtf is right-libertarians?

Google and Wiki are your friends. And this board explicitly calls for the use of real English, by the way. You're not stupid, you're perfectly capable of looking up a term you're unfamiliar with. It is not my obligation to compensate for your failed education.

And no, there is a very real difference between libertarians and pro big business conservatives. A very large difference.

In rhetoric, and purely intellectual principles, I'm sure there is. However, as I pointed out repeatedly, this functionally translates into nothing but stumping for business and attacking human values (such as solidarity, community, and sympathy, in favor of rhetoric and 'market discipline'). I challenged you and your lemming to provide some proof that right-"libertarians" had ever provided anything other than frequently post facto, afterthought-esque rhetorical support for progressive causes or historical progressive changes. As pointed out, you guys did nothing to help workers, political dissidents, women, gays, ad nauseum. Perhaps one can say you may offer some support to non-violent drug offenders, but quite frankly your institutional organizations and outfits, from the Cato Institute on down produce a lot more opposing Social Security, the Obama Stimulus, and other immediate pro-business bullshit like that than social-civil libertarian causes like abortion, reproductive and sexual freedom in general, or drug prohibition. For these historical truisms, not to mention the extremely narrow practical definition of 'liberty' bandied about by right-"libertarians", I feel like I have every right to call your very historically and intellectually counterfeit appropriation of the libertarian reputation to be weasel-word re-branding and propaganda of the most vulgar sort.

In a sense, I'm actually being extremely charitable, because your forebearers actually provided aid and comfort for attacks on political dissidents, foreign democracies, etc. I'm being yet still overly charitable, since your spiritual forebearers, the so-called "classical liberals" of the Nineteenth Century - in reality, just apologists for capitalist crimes borrowing an intellectual veneer -, were identical in rhetoric, reasoning, functional political role and aims to you, and thereby identical in substance for all essential purposes, whatever fresh-painted sign you stick outside your store. And they justified all manner of barbarism inherent to capital accumulation and crass imperialism associated with the Gilded Age and the late Nineteenth Century, and strongly opposed and gave aid and comfort to the strikebreakers and imperialists and opponents of popular struggles for civil and labor rights.

I'm not going to reply to any boilerplate response to this. Demonstrate how right-"libertarians" actually in significant part (this means not some tiny fraction or dissident libertarians) have supported substantially any progressive change. I want to know what individuals and organizations are involved in today's struggles for rights and freedoms other than the freedom of rich people and corporations to avoid taxation and regulation.

No, you're an imbecile who couldn't even attempt to refute the content of my statement. Furthermore, I never said anything remotely like "all other ideologies are evil", which just shows how juvenile and emotionalist your--well, what you think passes for thought--thought is. It is but childish ranting and fetishizing of fancy-sounding philosophical terms, without the depth of understanding of their meaning and the real world around you.

You didn't said it explicitly that all ideologies different from your's are evil.

But your tremendous ignorance of anything related to the social sciences appears to be the source of your hugely stupid remarks.

The latter statement in no way is similar to the prior claim, so you're factually mistaken, incoherent, and obviously confused. Since you cannot possibly mean what you say, or must be a literal imbecile, we can dismiss this and move along.

(P.S., I'll think you are some genius in a position to judge my credibility when you man up on the socialism thread with your uber economist academic credentials and refute Stas and I, until then you're just a whining pussy.)

To say that libertarians are in favor of the interests of a group of society by using the power of governments to protect and prop up this group is to not understand anything about the subject.

I'm talking about what right-"libertarians" and their organizations actually functionally do. What is the actual outcome of their "libertarian" politics. I'm sure they 'claim' a lot of things on this matter, but propaganda does not establish matters of fact in the documentary and historical record. I'm saying that the usual motives for financing and support their ideologies and ideologists are very different from the self-described motives and aims of the ideologists and their supporters.

You appear to be a total ignorant of this subject, from the sample of posts that I read from you.

Do you have anything to contribute that isn't "you're a meanie"; "you suck!"; etc. ad hominem attacks? I hope you don't think this suffices as a counterargument, or anything remotely convincing to anyone not part of a captive audience or already among your choir.

You appear to be a usual socialist retard with thinks that socialism is the only ideology in favor of the "common man" and that all other political positions hide some evil interests in them.

I think that the personal motives and sincerity of most people is a matter apart from the functional outcome of their ideological positions and support for various political causes. I think that ideologies do not generally develop from the "ground up" in some even approximately genuinely free "marketplace of ideas"; generally privileged elites employ intellectuals whose doctrinal outputs reflects and typically defends the interests of those power systems and structures of inequality. It is then disseminated in order to strengthen the integrity of the society. This applies broadly, if not universally. As Howard Zinn put it with regard to states: "governments have to lie, or they wouldn't last very long." It is a historical truism: Aristotle had to abandon the Lyceum because he produced propaganda defending the Macedonian hegemony over Athens; a nationalist regime change was hostile to his function as a commissar for the rulers.

A marketplace for ideas can only be considered free to the extent there is equal and fair opportunity for participation without vetting or appeasing centralized institutions of power and privilege which control access and production. This is obviously the case in our society, so we can dismiss this fantasy and move on. I'd recommend Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. It includes systemic comparisons in cases of clearly comparable situations where political and economic interests differed, and examines the consequences for their presentation or lack thereof in the mass media.

You are of the type that links the colonial onslaughts with capitalism. That links the exploitation of the populations of the third world with capitalism.

Its factually and explicitly true in many cases, even if one does not want to claim that it applies systemically and broadly (as I, and most socialists, do). Western politicians, capitalist ideologists, and businessmen explicitly extolled the economic virtues and motivations for imperialism (along with the usual apologist agitprop about civilizing the barbarians). What was the Congo Free State? In at least a limited sense my point of view is indisputably true.

That's the usual crude Marxist position of 17 year old socialist retards. We have a loot of your types in Brazil as well.

More whining from the functional illiterate; you will sound more convincing when you can compose a reply in lucid language. Furthermore, you're factually wrong: I'm not much of a Marxist. On the Left I am pretty eclectic, un-dogmatic, and anti-sectarian, though I probably lie closest to the anarcho-syndicalist tradition.

Hey puss puss, why don't you man up on the thread you tucked your tail between your legs and ran away on like a little bitch after being spanked by me and Stas? You've have a big mouth for having such a yawning pussy.

What? I gave you a set of arguments.

I don't care to read about your thoughts (absence of thoughts) on these arguments. It is futile to argue with you and I will not learn anything reading anything that you write about political/social/economic matters.

It is like arguing with a young earth creationist about evolution.

Translation: Wah wah wah I ran away because I couldn't refute your challenges. Still waiting for you to put up on your gauntlet-toss of academic authority, especially when Stas has completed a formal education in economics.

Certainly. Rational choice theory was pioneered by libertarian economists,

wtf do you call "rational choice theory"?

Because rational choice analytical reasoning was used pretty much by Aristotle. Would you call Aristotle a "libertarian"?

Rational choice theory is not the same thing as rational inquiry, retard. Although I do think "rational choice theory" implicitly undermines core democratic and basic communitarian (in the most fundamental sense, such as those required to have a nation) principles, it refers to the basic paradigm of predominant academic macroeconomics, and I made a mistake by stating that was what I was talking about. More precisely, what I was referring to was public choice theory which is a direct assault on democratic and liberal reasoning on the ethics and legitimacy of public action in the general sense, and is purely ideological and dominated by right-"libertarians".

The private sector has always the tendency to be more efficient than the government.

Then why did the Eastern Bloc industrialize and grow better than many "freer" economies in the Third World? How come much of the high-tech high-growth industry was pioneered by the state (phones, airplanes, microwave ovens, the Internet)?

But why demonstrate your point when reciting market pieties will suffice?

If you mean regulations that impede companies from physically hurting other people? That's not the case.

As pointed out, you are extremely naive and ignorant, or dogmatic and indoctrinated vis-a-vis the actual historical and documentary record of business with regard to free organization and relations amongst workers and the public at large.

In an ANCAP world, the functions of the state in providing security and justice would be carried over by private companies. These companies would prosecute the company that dumped the toxic waste.

And what exactly would prevent "anarcho"-capitalist "private defense companies" from following the incentive of rent-seeking and such turn into a bloody gangster-racket which demanded protection payments on pain of force?

[Ritterin Sophia]

I see no problem with giving companies access to military grade hardware for usage against civilian populations. What could possibly go wrong- I mean, it isn't like they have the incentive to be brutal and cheap to keep people in line... oh wait. Yeah, our current military has problem with the occasional nutjub- a military geared to attracting them... well, I guess being able to rape people who haven't made their payment would keep the trooper wage demands down. Unless they don't have a monopoly in which case it goes from cartoon villiany to our favorite kind of war between the power company and the phone company.

I don't think you'd see that, I think you'd see Arms Manufacturers monopolizing all the weaponry for their own Private Security Firms, which would realize they control the weapons and ammo, hello Military Junta.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Exactly, "anarcho"-capitalism (anarchism is not and cannot be capitalist; perhaps a more accurate name would be stateless capitalist fantasyism) is a half-way house to the immediate breakdown of civil society in favor of Somalianization: that is, a rapid onset of gangster-racket-to-chieftainship-to-warlord barbarism which inevitably results in the eventual establishment of victors' states. There is no credible mechanism to maintain a parity of armed strength and perfect deterrence to unlawful force, and therefore, no means of preventing the immediate recourse to rent-seeking.

[K. A. Pital]

Anybody that has a different ideology than you is EVIL!

You didn't said it explicitly that all ideologies different from your's are evil.

How far will you backpedal, Iosef? Next, on SDN - Iosef Cross publicly admits he has nothing except ad hominem attacks.

Iosef, once again - your posts in this thread are rubbish one-liners, full of emotional ad-hominems, but without any facts. You did better in other threads - even if you ran out like a pussy when being called out with correct statistical data, and resorted to pathetic "I'm still right" cries. Shape up and start actually contributing.

In an ANCAP world, the functions of the state in providing security and justice would be carried over by private companies. These companies would prosecute the company that dumped the toxic waste.

And there shall be war between.... say, BP "Blackwater Rangers" and Louisiana Fisher's Association "SHARKS". Two PMCs will come to armed conflict, and one shall prevail. I doubt it'd be the fisher's though. I doubt the fishers would own the sea that is polluted in the first place - it's more likely that BP will own the sea - it has more money to buy a chunk of the sea. Are you seriously that fucking dumb?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Bumping with Content.
Apparently Rand Paul simply doesn't know when to SHUT UP
LINK

Rand Paul: I Was Sullied by "Lies and Innuendo"
Posted by Brian Montopoli 44 comments


ShareE-mailPrintFont
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is shown during an interview at his campaign headquarters after winning his party's primary election in Bowling Green, Ky., Wednesday, May 19, 2010. (Credit: AP)
After a flurry of national press attention prompted by his upset victory in the Kentucky Republican Senate primary followed by his suggestion that he does not entirely support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul has been lying low, largely avoiding the national spotlight as he tries to put together a winning general election campaign.

But he has not dropped completely off the map: Over the weekend, an op-ed from Paul appeared in his hometown newspaper, the Bowling Green Daily News. In it, he lays out his beliefs about the limits of government - and addresses criticism of his comments on the Civil Rights Act, which prompted questions about whether he was too controversial for the mainstream GOP.

Paul writes that beginning almost immediately after his primary victory, his reputation was "sullied" by "lies and innuendo" in the form of false claims on cable news that he had called for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act. He writes that by trying to take a nuanced position on the measure he "did what typical candidates don't - I discussed some philosophical issues with government mandating rules on private businesses."

When Paul was pressed on whether he thinks the government should prohibit private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race back on May 20th, he said this, in part: "Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way, in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires...that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it."

In his op-ed, Paul tries to clarify his position, laying out his opposition to what he sees as government overreach into the behavior of private businesses. (He also stresses that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, despite any misgivings.) Casting himself as an "idealist," he compares his outlook to that of the abolitionists who pushed for an end to slavery despite the failure of "weak-kneed politicians."

The fight in 2010, he writes, is over "the rights of people to be free from a nanny state."

"For example, I am opposed to the government telling restaurant owners that they cannot allow smoking in their establishments," he writes. "I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option. Think about it - this overreach is now extending to mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus. Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us?"

Paul goes on to write that the media is "twisting my small government message" by casting him as "a crusader for repeal of the Americans for Disabilities Act and The Fair Housing Act."

"Again, this is patently untrue," he writes. "I have simply pointed out areas within these broad federal laws that have financially burdened many smaller businesses."

Continues Paul: "For example, should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability?" Wouldn't it be better to allow that business to give a handicapped employee a ground floor office? We need more businesses and jobs, not fewer."

Rand Paul and his father Ron - dubbed "the First Family of Libertarianism" - were profiled in the New York Times over the weekend. Rand Paul, the newspaper reports, did not get an allowance, "which [his parents] viewed as a parental version of a government handout."

He also didn't have a strict curfew. Writes the Times: "Mr. [Ron] Paul says that unintended consequences -- like speeding home to beat the clock -- can result from excessive meddling from a central authority."

[Samuel]

that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it."

That is what social pressure is for!

The fight in 2010, he writes, is over "the rights of people to be free from a nanny state."

Why? What if the nanny state is right because in a specific case people will constantly make the wrong decision? What about ones that nudge people into making the right choices?

"For example, I am opposed to the government telling restaurant owners that they cannot allow smoking in their establishments," he writes. "I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option.

Why? It is an effective way to discourage smoking and improve public health.

Think about it - this overreach is now extending to mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus. Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us?"

True- it would be simpler to raise taxes on unhealthy foods and stop corn, sugar and other subsidies.