Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> > I may have accidentally said or implied that, but I should have said

> > something more like, it is one's property insofar as and in

> proportion

> > to the extent that one can choose how to dispose of it.

>

> And how one actually uses it while it is yours isn't part of this

> equation

> at all?!

Obviously even the strictest libertarian doesn't profess to believe

this, because using the bat to harm someone would clearly be a part of

the equation.

> These rules aren't arbitrary. This is my point. There is the

> inherent right

> of a person not to be discriminated against because of race, sexual

> preference, sex, religion, etc, and there is the right to dispose of

> one's

> property.

But how is calling a right " inherent " NOT arbitrary? From what source

does it derive? On what authority is it claimed? What is it based

upon? Chris's answer to that conundrum, and indeed that of many

religious people, is to ascribe god as the ultimate source of human

rights, but IMO that's merely removing the arbitrariness by one or

more degrees. As a utilitarian, I bypass the idea entirely. Humans

are social creatures with natures shaped and circumscribed by

evolution, and society is formed via a social contract. So the real

question to me is what kind of society we want. I want a fair, free

and open society, and the golden rule, for all its association with

religiosity, is actually the ultimate utilitarian principle.

It's also likely, however, that a number of different social

strategies and preferences are genetically baked into different

segments of the population, and so we'll probably be stuck with this

sort of strife and debate for the foreseeable future of the human race.

> YOU are choosing which has priority for you. I don't care what

> 'the libertarian' says. I'm talking to you. This is YOUR priority.

> And I am

> comfortable with calling that bigoted. You say, I don't consider

> your right

> as a black person to buy this home as important as this racist pig's

> right

> not to sell it to you because you're black. You're not racist in the

> aggressive sense of the person selling his home, but there is

> something

> deeply ethically flawed in your position.

I don't believe is characterizing his views, but debating the

libertarian position in general and as it applies to Ron

specifically.

Also, while I doubt you'll take my word on it, I believe I know Chris

more than well enough to state with authority that he's neither racist

nor malicious in any way. His religiosity notwithstanding (<g>) he's

one of the best people I know.

Perhaps more to the point, where exactly do you draw the line between

legitimately defending the right of individuals to engage in racist

behavior and being a racist yourself? As I believe I've made

abundantly clear on this list over the years, I believe very strongly

in the free and unfettered exchange of ideas -- even if I find those

ideas abhorrent. I'll strongly defend the right of racists to spout

racism, Nazis to spout nazism, and so on ad nauseam, and I'm a die-

hard opponent of hate speech laws. Does that make me a racist or a

Nazi or a hater or what have you? If not, how is this different from

believing that someone should have the right to give or sell his

property to whomever he wishes even if those wishes are in and of

themselves repugnant? Personally, I don't believe this position is

necessarily racist; I just believe that many racists try to hide their

bigotry in the guise of libertarianism by adopting the position.

> > In what sense does someone have a right to use someone else's

> things?

> > I don't have a " right " to buy bread at the grocery store, for

> example,

> > even though I might depend on that for my livelihood to some extent.

>

> Huh? Why don't you have the right to buy bread at the grocery store?

> If you

> don't, can every grocery store ban you from buying food there?

Actually, stores already have that right, more or less. However, I

believe they can only ban people who've made a nuisance of themselves

or otherwise engaged in disorderly conduct or the like; I don't think

they can refuse to serve any black people, for example.

> > It's my understanding that the black community was essentially

> booming

> > economically and culturally prior to the passage of forced

> integration

> > and anti-discrimination policies the middle of last century.

>

> I have rarely heard such trash from someone who claims himself to be

> educated and thoughtful.

It's not just racist whites who oppose bussing, you know, Gene.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> This isn't a list rule or anything, but it would be really helpful if

> folks would separate their text into paragraphs. If I get a post that

> is 30 sentences in a paragraph, I find it almost impossible to read,

> and I doubt I'm the only one.

Heartily seconded.

-

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > Gene-

>> >

>>>> >>> I may have accidentally said or implied that, but I should have said

>>>> >>> something more like, it is one's property insofar as and in

>>> >> proportion

>>>> >>> to the extent that one can choose how to dispose of it.

>>> >>

>>> >> And how one actually uses it while it is yours isn't part of this

>>> >> equation

>>> >> at all?!

>> >

>> > Obviously even the strictest libertarian doesn't profess to believe

>> > this, because using the bat to harm someone would clearly be a part of

>> > the equation.

>

> Ok with the bat already ­ I assumed was talking about ownership of a

> home or something equivalent, and I was commenting here about that - making

> the point that it¹s not only the freedom to dispose of something in the manner

> you wish that determines ownership.

> OBVIOUSLY.

>> >

>>> >> These rules aren't arbitrary. This is my point. There is the

>>> >> inherent right

>>> >> of a person not to be discriminated against because of race, sexual

>>> >> preference, sex, religion, etc, and there is the right to dispose of

>>> >> one's

>>> >> property.

>> >

>> > But how is calling a right " inherent " NOT arbitrary? From what source

>> > does it derive? On what authority is it claimed? What is it based

>> > upon? Chris's answer to that conundrum, and indeed that of many

>> > religious people, is to ascribe god as the ultimate source of human

>> > rights, but IMO that's merely removing the arbitrariness by one or

>> > more degrees. As a utilitarian, I bypass the idea entirely. Humans

>> > are social creatures with natures shaped and circumscribed by

>> > evolution, and society is formed via a social contract. So the real

>> > question to me is what kind of society we want. I want a fair, free

>> > and open society, and the golden rule, for all its association with

>> > religiosity, is actually the ultimate utilitarian principle.

>

> So, you can start out with God, or you can start out with ³what kind of

> society we want². You claim that yours ISN¹T arbitrary? There is a difference,

> I think, between realizing that at a very fundamental level, justification

> ends, or it starts becoming circular, and calling things Œarbitrary¹. In one

> sense you are right ­ rights are ascribed to people, they aren¹t objective

> qualities of a person. But, whether based purely on logic, as you claim to be

> doing, or on deep conviction, I don¹t think that how one forms one¹s

> fundamental beliefs about these is arbitrary. How one expresses them, perhaps

> is arbitrary, or how one differentiates in an argument, or decides specific

> cases, may be arbitrary.

>

>> >

>> > It's also likely, however, that a number of different social

>> > strategies and preferences are genetically baked into different

>> > segments of the population, and so we'll probably be stuck with this

>> > sort of strife and debate for the foreseeable future of the human race.

>

> I don¹t think that something as specific as a racist Œstrategy¹ is

> ³genetically baked² - certainly not to the extent that it couldn¹t be

> overcome.

>

>> >

>>> >> YOU are choosing which has priority for you. I don't care what

>>> >> 'the libertarian' says. I'm talking to you. This is YOUR priority.

>>> >> And I am

>>> >> comfortable with calling that bigoted. You say, I don't consider

>>> >> your right

>>> >> as a black person to buy this home as important as this racist pig's

>>> >> right

>>> >> not to sell it to you because you're black. You're not racist in the

>>> >> aggressive sense of the person selling his home, but there is

>>> >> something

>>> >> deeply ethically flawed in your position.

>> >

>> > I don't believe is characterizing his views, but debating the

>> > libertarian position in general and as it applies to Ron

>> > specifically.

>

> I believe that is characterizing his views, and that he agrees with Ron

> and the libertarian position...or else he would specify how and where he

> disagreed.

>

>> >

>> > Also, while I doubt you'll take my word on it, I believe I know Chris

>> > more than well enough to state with authority that he's neither racist

>> > nor malicious in any way. His religiosity notwithstanding (<g>) he's

>> > one of the best people I know.

>

> You misinterpret my position. I was stating that I am comfortable with using

> the term Œracist¹ for someone whose beliefs may not be explicitly racist, but

> obviously because of prioritization of basic values, allow hurtful racism to

> occur. As I¹ve also stated ­ this is obviously a weak form of racism, and

> obviously quite different from the very virulent kind. But, generally that

> someone may be a nice person, and not malicious to anyone, doesn¹t mean that

> he may not be, in his policies and views, very different.

>

>> >

>> > Perhaps more to the point, where exactly do you draw the line between

>> > legitimately defending the right of individuals to engage in racist

>> > behavior and being a racist yourself? As I believe I've made

>> > abundantly clear on this list over the years, I believe very strongly

>> > in the free and unfettered exchange of ideas -- even if I find those

>> > ideas abhorrent. I'll strongly defend the right of racists to spout

>> > racism, Nazis to spout nazism, and so on ad nauseam, and I'm a die-

>> > hard opponent of hate speech laws. Does that make me a racist or a

>> > Nazi or a hater or what have you?

>

> Where have I stated that shouldn¹t be allowed to state his views? I am

> simply saying that to my mind, there are implications to these views that I am

> uncomfortable with. I agree with your views about free speech ­ when they are

> used to intimidate others (impinge upon the rights of others) is when I think

> that there should be restrictions. Certainly I¹ve never claimed that the

> defense of free speech makes one a proponent of all of the speech that one

> allows, in fact this is obviously not the case. But this is different than the

> defense of actions that directly, materially, hurt others, isn¹t it?

>

>> > If not, how is this different from

>> > believing that someone should have the right to give or sell his

>> > property to whomever he wishes even if those wishes are in and of

>> > themselves repugnant? Personally, I don't believe this position is

>> > necessarily racist; I just believe that many racists try to hide their

>> > bigotry in the guise of libertarianism by adopting the position.

>

> That¹s true. And I don¹t believe that proceeds from that direction. But

> again ­ racism isn¹t something that is an objective quality in a person. It is

> something that we ascribe to them. I don¹t think that it is a coincidence that

> some high profile white supremacists are supporting Ron . But, no ­ do I

> believe that is someone who believes that other races are inferior

> and/or believes that they SHOULD be discriminated against by policy? No. I¹m

> just saying that I think that, especially given the history of our country,

> and the context of these rights, proposing views that knowingly have as their

> implication the revocation of these rights, be described as a weak form of

> racism. But we can drop this.

>> >

>>>> >>> In what sense does someone have a right to use someone else's

>>> >> things?

>>>> >>> I don't have a " right " to buy bread at the grocery store, for

>>> >> example,

>>>> >>> even though I might depend on that for my livelihood to some extent.

>>> >>

>>> >> Huh? Why don't you have the right to buy bread at the grocery store?

>>> >> If you

>>> >> don't, can every grocery store ban you from buying food there?

>> >

>> > Actually, stores already have that right, more or less. However, I

>> > believe they can only ban people who've made a nuisance of themselves

>> > or otherwise engaged in disorderly conduct or the like; I don't think

>> > they can refuse to serve any black people, for example.

>

> Well, of course ­ a store should have the right to ban you if you repeatedly

> go in their and defecate on their floor. Obviously that wasn¹t the context of

> what I was saying.

>> >

>>>> >>> It's my understanding that the black community was essentially

>>> >> booming

>>>> >>> economically and culturally prior to the passage of forced

>>> >> integration

>>>> >>> and anti-discrimination policies the middle of last century.

>>> >>

>>> >> I have rarely heard such trash from someone who claims himself to be

>>> >> educated and thoughtful.

>> >

>> > It's not just racist whites who oppose bussing, you know, Gene.

>

> LOL ­ do you actually interpret what I said as solely pertaining to bussing?

> Where in the world do you get that from?

>> >

>> > -

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

On Dec 25, 2007 4:33 PM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Eat like we do? Probably not. That may or may not be from a lack of

> > economic resources. Economically speaking, yes they would be better

> > off. Although as individual groups black people, women, and gays are

> > not economically in bad shape. " Poor people " and immigrants will

> > depend on who you are looking at and how you are defining poverty.

>

> ? Well, obviously some poor people are very well off depending on how you

> define poverty.

Yes there are lots of problems with how the US gov't defines poverty.

They do *not* define poverty based on living conditions, which is

difficult enough as it is, but rather based on USDA data from 1955 on

how a family would survive food wise when under economic stress. That

figure is adjusted every year for inflation and simply put, basing

poverty statistics on a 53 year old **food** measure is a joke.

The income thresholds vary but are based on before tax cash. When

adjusted for after tax cash, capital gains, and non-cash transfers the

number of poor people drops significantly, approximately 13,000,000 to

be exact, or about 40% fewer than the official count.

Then there is the problem of the " income gap " between the rich and

poor. It always exagerates the wealth of the rich and understates the

wealth of the poor. It doesn't account for taxes on the rich and

simply ignores the non-cash assets of the poor.

The Census Bureau reported that the poor spend $2.24 dollars for every

$1 reported, and that does not include non-cash transfers like food

stamps, housing vouchers, educational subsidies, etc.

It has been estimated that when all the income of the poor is counted,

those fitting under the federal definition of poverty is about 1/5 as

high as what the government tells us.

Then there is the problem of goods and assets. There are approximately

1,000,000 people considered poor by the gov't who own homes worth at

least $150,000. Another 200,000 or so own homes worth at least

$300,000.

There is more but enough.

Yes, definitions do matter.

> Yeah - I think that there should be federal protections for poor people, and

> other protections for those who are discriminated against. If you really

> think that women, blacks, and gays, are NOT discriminated against, well

> perhaps you're part of the problem.

I think all kind of people are discriminated against all the time, be

they black, poor, fat, whathaveyou, for numerous reasons. That is not

the question. The question is to what extent is this impacting them in

the marketplace. Not very much, really. I can trot out the numbers if

you like, but they won't make you very happy.

> >>> The fact that some federal government agencies are corrupt, doesn¹t mean

> >> that

> >>> society would be better off if the whole system were dismantled.

> >

> > As far as I know, Dr. is not an anarchist. He is a

> > constitutionalist, and the debate is whether constitutionalism is

> > better than your " progressivism. "

>

> I believe that the original constitution had something in it about returning

> slaves who had escaped. I also believe that the constitution should be a

> living document....I'm always puzzled by people who are strict

> constitutionalists. Scalia is one such, and he's a fascist pig.

I'm just as puzzled by people who somehow ignore the amendment process

as a method of change.

> >> The fact

> >> that

> >>> some affirmative action programs have been misapplied doesn¹t mean that

> >> the

> >>> society would have been better off without them.

> >

> > Are you actually defending preferences and quotas?

>

> In some cases - damn right. Of course, you load the language in ways that

> are implicitly dishonest. These are loaded words now, but when used in such

> a manner they ignore that if the playing field isn't level, you have to try

> to tilt it somehow.

No, you are loading the language. Preferences and quotas remind people

what is actually going on under the language of " affirmative action, "

(about as loaded a phrase as there is), and thus they shy away from

describing baldly what they are actually doing.

Generally speaking, the only thing that affirmative action has

" affirmed, " is people who really didn't need the help in the first

place.

> The preference is already there, and the quotas were

> there - it required federal action to turn them around.

That is pure 100% balderdash. Federal action has retarded the progress

of Black Americans as a group. Nor can the feminist movement and

affirmative action explain the progress of women as a group especially

when women made much greater progress in the earlier part of the 20th

century when there was no such thing as (modern) feminism and

affirmative action.

> Your language is the

> language of the racist.

LOL! When you can't make an argument you resort to name calling? Talk

about LOADED words :-)

> >> The fact that the federal

> >>> government is not very good ( especially now) at protecting the rights

> of

> >>> other than corporations and the rich, doesn¹t mean that individual

> states

> >>> would be any better ­ in fact, I¹d imagine that some would become a

> whole

> >> lot

> >>> worse.

> >

> > And it just as easy to imagine some would be a whole lot better. The

> > difference would be that there would be competition - i.e. anarchy -

> > among the states (just as there currently is among the nations), and

> > if someone didn't like what was happening in California, they could

> > vote with their feet and move to Oregon or New Jersey or whathaveyou.

>

> LOL. Right. And if some homeless person didn't like how he was being treated

> in Iowa, why he could just take off for New Jersey.

Ever been homeless? Here in the state of Washington there are a number

of homeless people who are from California. Why? Because the network

here is better than Southern California. How do I know this? Besides

the fact I was briefly among them, I kept bumping into homeless folks

who told me that is exactly why they were in Washington. More places

to stay, better food, etc. Pretty interesting network actually. It

doesn't take much to work a few days and then catch a bus to another

state.

> And, of course, if there

> were a mass influx of people, the states would probably institute their own

> anti 'immigration' policies, which they'd be free to do, right?

>

> Your position is heartless and cold, like the views of other libertarians

> I've encountered. Why if people just don't like it here on earth, they can

> move to Venus. What's stopping them?

Just too funny. I'm heartless, or rather my position is heartless,

because I think there is a better way to aid the homeless than create

another gov't boondoggle that, rhetoric aside, actually harms rather

than helps? Okay, and your position is compassionate because you vote

for programs that take and spend other people's money and, rhetoric

aside, actually harms rather than helps? How interesting.

> > Not to mention it strikes me as blatantly obvious that instituting

> > change at the local or state level would be much more doable than

> > attempting to institute change at the national level.

>

> Well, in some cases, I'd guess yes, and in some, no...I don't see how that

> negates any of the previous.

Meaning you would have a better chance of shaping the policy you want

at the local level.

> >>> to some degree I¹m glad that this list hasn¹t degenerated into the Ron

> >>

> >>> simplicity that, for instance, the Mercola site has. I find it pretty

> >> ironic

> >>> given all of the morons who post there about ŒRon will save us.

> He¹s

> >> for

> >>> FREEDOM¹, and Mercola¹s brain dead diatribes on the subject, they very

> >>> actively censor anti Ron posts. VERY actively.

> >

> > Well I think you know that is not much interested in censoring

> > anything, so I don't see the point of referencing Mercola.

>

> I mentioned it in the context of the brain dead support that I see for Ron

> , including someone who has been favorably mentioned in a nutritional

> context on this list.

Brain dead? is brain dead? :-)

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

Ah, again with the heartless libertarian perspective.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: <slethnobotanist@...>

> On Dec 25, 2007 4:33 PM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > > Eat like we do? Probably not. That may or may not be from a lack of

> > > economic resources. Economically speaking, yes they would be better

> > > off. Although as individual groups black people, women, and gays are

> > > not economically in bad shape. " Poor people " and immigrants will

> > > depend on who you are looking at and how you are defining poverty.

> >

> > ? Well, obviously some poor people are very well off depending on how you

> > define poverty.

>

> Yes there are lots of problems with how the US gov't defines poverty.

> They do *not* define poverty based on living conditions, which is

> difficult enough as it is, but rather based on USDA data from 1955 on

> how a family would survive food wise when under economic stress. That

> figure is adjusted every year for inflation and simply put, basing

> poverty statistics on a 53 year old **food** measure is a joke.

>

> The income thresholds vary but are based on before tax cash. When

> adjusted for after tax cash, capital gains, and non-cash transfers the

> number of poor people drops significantly, approximately 13,000,000 to

> be exact, or about 40% fewer than the official count.

>

> Then there is the problem of the " income gap " between the rich and

> poor. It always exagerates the wealth of the rich and understates the

> wealth of the poor. It doesn't account for taxes on the rich and

> simply ignores the non-cash assets of the poor.

>

> The Census Bureau reported that the poor spend $2.24 dollars for every

> $1 reported, and that does not include non-cash transfers like food

> stamps, housing vouchers, educational subsidies, etc.

>

> It has been estimated that when all the income of the poor is counted,

> those fitting under the federal definition of poverty is about 1/5 as

> high as what the government tells us.

>

> Then there is the problem of goods and assets. There are approximately

> 1,000,000 people considered poor by the gov't who own homes worth at

> least $150,000. Another 200,000 or so own homes worth at least

> $300,000.

>

> There is more but enough.

>

> Yes, definitions do matter.

>

> > Yeah - I think that there should be federal protections for poor people, and

> > other protections for those who are discriminated against. If you really

> > think that women, blacks, and gays, are NOT discriminated against, well

> > perhaps you're part of the problem.

>

> I think all kind of people are discriminated against all the time, be

> they black, poor, fat, whathaveyou, for numerous reasons. That is not

> the question. The question is to what extent is this impacting them in

> the marketplace. Not very much, really. I can trot out the numbers if

> you like, but they won't make you very happy.

>

> > >>> The fact that some federal government agencies are corrupt, doesn¹t mean

> > >> that

> > >>> society would be better off if the whole system were dismantled.

> > >

> > > As far as I know, Dr. is not an anarchist. He is a

> > > constitutionalist, and the debate is whether constitutionalism is

> > > better than your " progressivism. "

> >

> > I believe that the original constitution had something in it about returning

> > slaves who had escaped. I also believe that the constitution should be a

> > living document....I'm always puzzled by people who are strict

> > constitutionalists. Scalia is one such, and he's a fascist pig.

>

> I'm just as puzzled by people who somehow ignore the amendment process

> as a method of change.

>

> > >> The fact

> > >> that

> > >>> some affirmative action programs have been misapplied doesn¹t mean that

> > >> the

> > >>> society would have been better off without them.

> > >

> > > Are you actually defending preferences and quotas?

> >

> > In some cases - damn right. Of course, you load the language in ways that

> > are implicitly dishonest. These are loaded words now, but when used in such

> > a manner they ignore that if the playing field isn't level, you have to try

> > to tilt it somehow.

>

> No, you are loading the language. Preferences and quotas remind people

> what is actually going on under the language of " affirmative action, "

> (about as loaded a phrase as there is), and thus they shy away from

> describing baldly what they are actually doing.

>

> Generally speaking, the only thing that affirmative action has

> " affirmed, " is people who really didn't need the help in the first

> place.

>

> > The preference is already there, and the quotas were

> > there - it required federal action to turn them around.

>

> That is pure 100% balderdash. Federal action has retarded the progress

> of Black Americans as a group. Nor can the feminist movement and

> affirmative action explain the progress of women as a group especially

> when women made much greater progress in the earlier part of the 20th

> century when there was no such thing as (modern) feminism and

> affirmative action.

>

> > Your language is the

> > language of the racist.

>

> LOL! When you can't make an argument you resort to name calling? Talk

> about LOADED words :-)

>

> > >> The fact that the federal

> > >>> government is not very good ( especially now) at protecting the rights

> > of

> > >>> other than corporations and the rich, doesn¹t mean that individual

> > states

> > >>> would be any better ­ in fact, I¹d imagine that some would become a

> > whole

> > >> lot

> > >>> worse.

> > >

> > > And it just as easy to imagine some would be a whole lot better. The

> > > difference would be that there would be competition - i.e. anarchy -

> > > among the states (just as there currently is among the nations), and

> > > if someone didn't like what was happening in California, they could

> > > vote with their feet and move to Oregon or New Jersey or whathaveyou.

> >

> > LOL. Right. And if some homeless person didn't like how he was being treated

> > in Iowa, why he could just take off for New Jersey.

>

> Ever been homeless? Here in the state of Washington there are a number

> of homeless people who are from California. Why? Because the network

> here is better than Southern California. How do I know this? Besides

> the fact I was briefly among them, I kept bumping into homeless folks

> who told me that is exactly why they were in Washington. More places

> to stay, better food, etc. Pretty interesting network actually. It

> doesn't take much to work a few days and then catch a bus to another

> state.

>

> > And, of course, if there

> > were a mass influx of people, the states would probably institute their own

> > anti 'immigration' policies, which they'd be free to do, right?

> >

> > Your position is heartless and cold, like the views of other libertarians

> > I've encountered. Why if people just don't like it here on earth, they can

> > move to Venus. What's stopping them?

>

> Just too funny. I'm heartless, or rather my position is heartless,

> because I think there is a better way to aid the homeless than create

> another gov't boondoggle that, rhetoric aside, actually harms rather

> than helps? Okay, and your position is compassionate because you vote

> for programs that take and spend other people's money and, rhetoric

> aside, actually harms rather than helps? How interesting.

>

> > > Not to mention it strikes me as blatantly obvious that instituting

> > > change at the local or state level would be much more doable than

> > > attempting to institute change at the national level.

> >

> > Well, in some cases, I'd guess yes, and in some, no...I don't see how that

> > negates any of the previous.

>

> Meaning you would have a better chance of shaping the policy you want

> at the local level.

>

> > >>> to some degree I¹m glad that this list hasn¹t degenerated into the Ron

> > >>

> > >>> simplicity that, for instance, the Mercola site has. I find it pretty

> > >> ironic

> > >>> given all of the morons who post there about ŒRon will save us.

> > He¹s

> > >> for

> > >>> FREEDOM¹, and Mercola¹s brain dead diatribes on the subject, they very

> > >>> actively censor anti Ron posts. VERY actively.

> > >

> > > Well I think you know that is not much interested in censoring

> > > anything, so I don't see the point of referencing Mercola.

> >

> > I mentioned it in the context of the brain dead support that I see for Ron

> > , including someone who has been favorably mentioned in a nutritional

> > context on this list.

>

> Brain dead? is brain dead? :-)

>

>

> --

> " The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

> end, make his way regardless of race. "

> - Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/2/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> Ah, again with the heartless libertarian perspective.

Shouldn't the word " heartless " apply to a disposition of the heart?

Chris

[Guest guest]

No, it can apply to positions that are heartless, using the usual meaning of the

term. That's the way that language works.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 1/2/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > Ah, again with the heartless libertarian perspective.

>

> Shouldn't the word " heartless " apply to a disposition of the heart?

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/2/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> No, it can apply to positions that are heartless, using the usual meaning of

> the term. That's the way that language works.

The way you use it, but that doesn't make it reasonable. Positions

don't have hearts.

Some positions might indicate someone's disposition of heart (like,

" people who can't afford health care don't deserve to get treated " ),

but political positions certainly don't.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 1/2/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > No, it can apply to positions that are heartless, using the usual meaning of

> > the term. That's the way that language works.

>

> The way you use it, but that doesn't make it reasonable. Positions

> don't have hearts.

give me a fucking break. That's not the way that language works - expressions

often don't make literal sense. Have you never heard 'heartless' applied to a

point of view before?

>

> Some positions might indicate someone's disposition of heart (like,

> " people who can't afford health care don't deserve to get treated " ),

> but political positions certainly don't.

You're wrong, and I don't care any more.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Putting it another way, since you seem to be having so much difficulty with it,

saying that a position is heartless is really a shortcut for saying that a

person who holds such a position, or set of positions, is heartless. Obviously.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 1/2/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > No, it can apply to positions that are heartless, using the usual meaning of

> > the term. That's the way that language works.

>

> The way you use it, but that doesn't make it reasonable. Positions

> don't have hearts.

>

> Some positions might indicate someone's disposition of heart (like,

> " people who can't afford health care don't deserve to get treated " ),

> but political positions certainly don't.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

> >> > I'm curious Gene, why do you think these kind of issues can only be

> >> > handled by the federal gov't or even gov't at all?

> >

> > Well, gee ­ who is going to handle them? The corporations are going to

> police

> > themselves?

Third party providers. The way the safety of products is **currently**

handled. It is not hard to see how that could be extended across the

board.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=193

excerpt:

What Keeps Us Safe?

Mark Thornton

Look at the back of your computer monitor, the bottom of your table

lamp, or the label on your hair dryer. Chances are you will see the

symbol " UL " with a circle around it. It stands for Underwriters

Laboratories, a firm headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., and an unsung

hero of the market economy.

Most people don't realize that dozens of products in their

homes--toasters, fire extinguishers, space heaters, televisions,

etc.--have been tested by the Underwriters Lab for safety. The Lab

also tests items like bulletproof vests, electric blankets, commercial

ice cream machines, and chicken de-beakers, among thousands of other

products.

But the Lab isn't an arm of the government. It is privately owned,

financed, and operated. No one is compelled by force of law to use its

services. It thrives, and makes our lives safer, by the power of its

excellent reputation. For that reason, its ideologically driven

enemies on the left despise it.

The firm was formed in 1894 to deal with the dangers posed by the

dramatic increase in the use of electricity. Today, it employs 4,000

scientists, engineers, and safety specialists to render an independent

verdict on hundreds of thousands of products.

The very existence of the Lab debunks the common civics-text view that

without government intervention, private businesses would seek profit

without regard for safety. Thus, bureaucrats have to police markets to

impose a balance between private interests and the common good. The

government, then, is the only thing standing between us and unceasing

fatal accidents.

The truth is the opposite. The market is well equipped to regulate

itself, and does a fine job of it. It's the government that operates

without oversight. To discover the quality and value of products, no

one would trust the advice of the scandal-ridden Commerce Department

or the Federal Trade Commission.

Unlike quality and price, safety isn't always at the forefront of the

consumer's mind. But that hasn't kept manufacturers from seeking out

the Lab's testing services. For those who appreciate the virtues of

private enterprise, the UL insignia is an inspiration.

The Lab was the first to set standards for certifying the safety of

pilots and planes before the government intervened. It set the

standards for building materials, fire fighting equipment, air

conditioners, and household chemicals. It employs safecrackers and

pyrotechnicians to test safes, and a variety of unique machines and

devices to test thousands of other products each year. It has been

testing multicolored Christmas lights since 1905, and entered the

building code business right after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

Despite its unparalleled experience and success, the market economy

keeps the Lab innovating. As engineer Drengenberg of the Lab

said, " There's always some little twist in a new product--an

innovative feature or something to make it cheaper--to keep us busy

developing the appropriate test procedure. "

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=193

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> >> > He certainly in the past has supported the abolishing of the FDA and

> >> > the FTC. Whether he would do so now I do not know. Even if that is

> >> > still his position, I doubt it would be high on his agenda.

> >> >

> >

> > I do understand that he is against the voting rights act.

Yes he believes that many of its provisions are discriminatory and

unconstitutional. However he does favor civil rights legislation **at

the state level**.

The Trouble With Forced Integration - Ron

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

" Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I

certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the

progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to

the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the

sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve

race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration

dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions

while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented

power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service

practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive

violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are

the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate

authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use

their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with

terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private

property owners, even those whose actions decent people find

abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous

interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate

commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate

commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to

give the federal government regulatory power over every business that

has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and

reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals

of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal

bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are

motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government

could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of

1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's

workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's

defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing

employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed

to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society.

Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered

racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the

past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public

attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have

improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in

promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law

unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty.

Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined

efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.

Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676. "

A partial transcript from his interview with Tim Russert on " Meet The

Press " dealing with this issue:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you

gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you

said this: " Contrary to the claims of " " supporters of the Civil Rights

Act of " '64, " the act did not improve race relations or enhance

freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights

Act of " '64 " increased racial tensions while diminishing individual

liberty. " That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to

live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level,

at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think

of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the

military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're,

you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that

you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that

all private property is under the domain of the federal government I

think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that

bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this

thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a

cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say

you're not allowed to do this.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...

REP. PAUL: So it's...

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal

government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race

relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black

people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some

statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about

personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us

out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with

the Constitution and private property rights.''

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

On 1/2/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> Putting it another way, since you seem to be having so much difficulty with

> it, saying that a position is heartless is really a shortcut for saying that

> a person who holds such a position, or set of positions, is heartless.

> Obviously.

I agree that's obvious, but it can't *possibly* be applied --

reasonably -- to a *political* position. If a polity was the totality

of a society, it could. In that case, saying, " I oppose a

single-payer health plan " would be the same thing as saying " I believe

some people shouldn't get medical care, " and one would have to be

relatively heartless to think some people shouldn't get needed medical

care.

But since there are many sectors of our society and many different

ways universal health care could be provided, some people may oppose a

single-payer plan because they don't care whether disadvantaged people

get needed medical care (heartless) and others might oppose a

single-payer system because they believe there are better ways to

provide care to the disadvantaged (not heartless) -- so the political

position itself is neutral.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 1/2/08, implode7@... <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net>

>> > <implode7@... <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>> >

>>> >> Putting it another way, since you seem to be having so much difficulty

>>> with

>>> >> it, saying that a position is heartless is really a shortcut for saying

>>> that

>>> >> a person who holds such a position, or set of positions, is heartless.

>>> >> Obviously.

>> >

>> > I agree that's obvious, but it can't *possibly* be applied --

>> > reasonably -- to a *political* position.

>

> You know, I¹m just sick of arguing with your bullshit. As I said later, I¹m

> just not into it. You¹ll never give up, and you don¹t know what the fuck

> you¹re talking about.

>

>> > If a polity was the totality

>> > of a society, it could. In that case, saying, " I oppose a

>> > single-payer health plan " would be the same thing as saying " I believe

>> > some people shouldn't get medical care, " and one would have to be

>> > relatively heartless to think some people shouldn't get needed medical

>> > care.

>> >

>> > But since there are many sectors of our society and many different

>> > ways universal health care could be provided, some people may oppose a

>> > single-payer plan because they don't care whether disadvantaged people

>> > get needed medical care (heartless) and others might oppose a

>> > single-payer system because they believe there are better ways to

>> > provide care to the disadvantaged (not heartless) -- so the political

>> > position itself is neutral.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

[Guest guest]

>> I mentioned it in the context of the brain dead support that I see for Ron

>> , including someone who has been favorably mentioned in a nutritional

>> context on this list.

>

> Brain dead? is brain dead? :-)

To clarify, since you seem to have an issue with reading

comprehension....no, not despite his best efforts. Nor you, despite

insurmountable verbosity.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> > You know, I’m just sick of arguing with your bullshit. As I said

> later, I’m

> > just not into it. You’ll never give up, and you don’t know what

> the fuck

> > you’re talking about.

Please refrain from profanity. Though I personally have no problem

with it, I'd prefer to keep the list clean in deference to the more

tender sensibilities of some members. Also, it can very easily be

construed in this context as a personal attack of sorts.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> The way you use it, but that doesn't make it reasonable. Positions

> don't have hearts.

>

> Some positions might indicate someone's disposition of heart (like,

> " people who can't afford health care don't deserve to get treated " ),

> but political positions certainly don't.

ly, this strikes me as a pointless distinction in (relatively)

casual conversation. Gene's meaning is clear even if, technically

speaking, your point is semantically correct.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> The Trouble With Forced Integration - Ron

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

This is worthless. It states RP's asserted belief that the civil

rights act violates property rights, and it alleges (without the least

attempt at support) that the civil rights act was counterproductive

and actually worsened race relations. That's it. End of story.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > > The constitution is designed to be a living document, which is

> why it

> > > has a process for ammendment. Ron supports ammending the

> > > constitution through the proper means rather than disregarding it.

>

> > Probably, but it's also instructive to examine Ron 's record and

> > observe where he's attempted to amend the constitution and where

> he's

> > instead attempted to amend the law and actual practice.

>

> > For example, one of his root beliefs (expressed on Meet the Press,

> in

> > fact) is that the president should not have the power to enter the

> > country into war, and that instead going to war should require an

> act

> > of Congress. Yes, this is declared in the constitution, but if he

> > believed that the president SHOULD be able to declare war (as

> > presidents effectively have of late) then he'd be pushing for a

> > constitutional amendment rather than opposing the practice on

> principle.

>

> I've read your post three times in a row and I'm still not sure what

> you are trying to say.

My point is that saying that Ron supports amending the

constitution through the proper means rather than disregarding it is

not a meaningful response to an assertion about his beliefs. He

clearly has a set of root beliefs about how society should work and

how government should be constituted; he doesn't merely have a blind

allegiance to the constitution regardless of what its contents happen

to be at any given moment. Perhaps, though, I should have used his

stance on gay marriage as an example instead of his position on war.

Ron 's supporters often say he's not opposed to gay marriage and

he believes that while the federal government has no place regulating

marriage, states should feel free to define marriage however they

like. Technically speaking, this is not factually incorrect, but it's

deceptive (or mistaken) by omission. Ron is actually personally

opposed to gay marriage, and he believes (and has stated) that the

states should be free (of interference from the federal government) to

prohibit gay marriage and to refuse to recognize gay marriages

recognized by and performed in other states. His actual agenda is not

merely strict constructionism.

This sort of constructionist argument (which itself is often seriously

flawed anyway) is much like the theory of nullification, which was

gussied up as a defense of the rights of oppressed minorities but was

in fact aimed at defending and preserving slavery.

> Ron believes a) that the constitution should be upheld and

> that the constitutional practice of Congress declaring war is good and

> c) that war should be a last resort, and, ethically, be justified

> under Augustinian just war principles.

>

> Thus, he a) consistently agitates for the upholding of this part of

> the constitution in practice, has introduced legislation to repeal

> the War Powers Resolution, which he considers unconstitutional and c)

> opposes some wars on principle.

I wasn't disagreeing with any of this. I was merely trying to

illustrate that Ron 's beliefs about war are not merely value-

neutral constructionism which would change if the constitution

changed, but actually come from a genuine opposition to the sorts of

wars we've been entering into lately; similarly, I believe it's clear

that his opposition to a number of other laws, ideals and regulations

are not merely value-neutral constructionism, but are motivated by his

core moral philosophy.

I hope this clarifies.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Ron says he opposes a consumption-based tax system, which would

> be very punishing to the poor and middle class:

He says this, but he's also said he'd fund the government (albeit a

cut-down version of it) with the sales tax, as he'd banish the income

tax and, IIRC, the capital gains tax. I don't remember what his

positions are on the various user fees that the government also

assesses, but they're trivial compared to the other taxes.

> By the way, I'm not positive exactly what 's stance on this is,

> but in an interview he said he wasn't necessarily a gold standard man

> per se but he supports a commodity-backed currency.

He's introduced bills to return us to the gold standard multiple

times, I believe.

-

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Chris-

>

> > The way you use it, but that doesn't make it reasonable. Positions

> > don't have hearts.

> >

> > Some positions might indicate someone's disposition of heart (like,

> > " people who can't afford health care don't deserve to get treated " ),

> > but political positions certainly don't.

>

> ly, this strikes me as a pointless distinction in (relatively)

> casual conversation. Gene's meaning is clear even if, technically

> speaking, your point is semantically correct.

>

Actually, is semantically correct only in a very specific, and quite

irrelevant way - positions don't have hearts. This is not under dispute.

However, when you're talking semantics, definitions, etc, you're talking about

the way that language actually is used, and he has NO ground to stand on.

Talking about positions as 'heartless', 'cruel', etc, is standard, common usage,

and is not simply colloquial. It is correct, and is simply doing his

typical 'obfuscating thing'.

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Did you miss my other post? He proposed this ammendment to highlight

> the unconstitutionality of the process by which Congress was already

> trying to ban flag-burning, and then gave a speech against his own

> proposed amendment -- just like he did when he introduced a bill to

> wage war against Iraq and spoke out against his own bill, saying that

> he opposed the war, but if Congress supported it they should at least

> do it constitutionally.

I guess I did. That's a rather bizarre tactic, but OK.

> I meant from a strategic point of view, which seemed most relevant

> since you are taking the cynical point of view about his beliefs and

> motivations.

Cynical?

> I don't doubt it, but if somehow you totally screwed it up and 25

> years later someone was claiming you believed x and you had 36,000

> posts on groups that could be searched by keyword and everything

> that turned up on the issue after the incident indicated you didn't

> believed the opposite I'd be more inclined to take your viewpoint from

> what I knew you wrote than what someone else wrote in your name 25

> years prior even if you mishandled it with total ineptitude.

It would be a little more difficult, though, if it were difficult to

find anything I actually had said which meaningfully contradicted the

fraudulent or misattributed quotes, though.

> So I would say, if Ron is a bigot, can you find anything bigoted

> in this massive amount of information he has authentically written

> over the last decade?

If I had the time to read through a significant portion of his oeuvre,

I'm sure I could come up with some material that you and I would

disagree about. <g>

> Fair enough, but at the very least we should be able to agree that

> even if passive anti-racist measures are harmless, someone can oppose

> them on grounds of property rights without being a bigot.

Probably, but I think it's an edge condition.

> Well, whether a market is " free " is sort of a semantic issue that you

> could go either way on. It's like debating whether we have a " free "

> will. Clearly we aren't all free to participate in widget market if

> some of us have widgets to sell and some of us don't.

That's another irrelevant objection.

A free widget market would clearly be one in which anyone with widgets

is allowed to sell widgets and anyone with currency is allowed to buy

them. A closed widget market would be one in which certain people

with widgets (perhaps, say, black people) are not allowed to sell

widgets, and/or certain people with currency (maybe star-bellied

sneeches) aren't allowed to buy them.

> The point is

> more about private property, and whether you have the right to dispose

> with your property as you wish providing you are not physically

> intruding on someone else's person or property (the libertarian

> position) or whether you have any variety of other limits placed on

> what you can do with your property for various other reasons (the

> non-libertarian position).

Not exactly. What you describe as the libertarian position is that

the government shouldn't be allowed to require that I be allowed to

buy or sell widgets, but that other people should be allowed to stop me.

> No, I think in the vast realm of what Ron has done, THIS is what

> you are choosing to focus on.

Yes and no. Obviously if I'm opposing his candidacy I'm not going to

focus on the areas in which I agree with him.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> However, when you're talking semantics, definitions, etc, you're

> talking about the way that language actually is used, and he has NO

> ground to stand on. Talking about positions as 'heartless', 'cruel',

> etc, is standard, common usage, and is not simply colloquial. It is

> correct, and is simply doing his typical 'obfuscating thing'.

True, but I don't think he meant it as obfuscation. I believe that he

regards it as a serious point that someone could take some of these

positions without actually being heartless, and technically speaking,

I agree. I doubt, however, that the point has much practical

relevance, because in general the advocates of these positions do in

fact strike me as heartless, and those who aren't by and large seem to

be seriously misguided.

-

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Gene-

>

> > However, when you're talking semantics, definitions, etc, you're

> > talking about the way that language actually is used, and he has NO

> > ground to stand on. Talking about positions as 'heartless', 'cruel',

> > etc, is standard, common usage, and is not simply colloquial. It is

> > correct, and is simply doing his typical 'obfuscating thing'.

>

> True, but I don't think he meant it as obfuscation. I believe that he

> regards it as a serious point that someone could take some of these

> positions without actually being heartless, and technically speaking,

> I agree. I doubt, however, that the point has much practical

> relevance, because in general the advocates of these positions do in

> fact strike me as heartless, and those who aren't by and large seem to

> be seriously misguided.

>

> -

>

Well, right - I think that it's possible to construct such a person, but most

libertarians of the ron paul, chris masterjohn, and similar on this list, place

for instance property rights above all else - and this, to me, is by definition

heartless. 'yeah - i'm all for poor people, but not if it means restricting the

right of Bill gates to make a billion a year'. Heartless.

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > The way you use it, but that doesn't make it reasonable. Positions

> > don't have hearts.

> > Some positions might indicate someone's disposition of heart (like,

> > " people who can't afford health care don't deserve to get treated " ),

> > but political positions certainly don't.

> ly, this strikes me as a pointless distinction in (relatively)

> casual conversation. Gene's meaning is clear even if, technically

> speaking, your point is semantically correct.

I don't think it's just semantics. If the portion you quoted was my

full statement, I'd agree with you, but it doesn't capture my point.

Whether a position indicates someone is heartless or is heartless

itself is an almost meaningless distinction, but my point is that

while *some* types of positions might indicate whether someone is

heartless, political positions don't. In my example, where you stand

on a single-payer health plan has little if anything to do with

whether you have compassion for people who don't have the medical care

they need or struggle to pay for it.

Chris