Re: POLITICS: Ron

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90 & ItemID=14678

A few problems with this article:

First paragraph: It asserts the amount of capital is finite. This is

incorrect. Capital is generated when it is produced. Technology,

factories, accumulated research -- these are all properly considered

capital. You research something, you produce new knowledge; this is

capital. You build a factory, you've produced new capital. Capital

is formed from the rearrangement of previous capital. Steel is

capital, but you've created new capital when you make a machine out of

it. Making the machine increases the total amount of goods and

services that can be produced and generally ncreases living standards

for everyone. Mating a cow produces a new cow and increases the

amount of milk we can drink. Building a portable chicken tractor

increases safety and increases pasturing, and thus a higher quality

egg or meat. Whether the society is " capitalism " or some form of

voluntary or forced collectivism, capital is not finite but

continually formed by economic activity.

Second paragraph: He associates Ron with Ayn Rand and the

objectivists. Ron is associated more with Rothbardian

libertarianism, and Rothbard referred to Ayn Rand's followers as a

cult. This school is also very pro-peace based not simply on

nationalism but on the ethics of killing innocent people, whereas Ayn

Rand followers are very pro-war, and consider us to have no moral

responsibility for killing innocent people.

Fourth paragraph: I think the absolute low-point of Ron 's

campaign is his stance on illegal immigration, so I partly agree with

the author. However, it is untrue that he supports a border fence; he

opposes the idea but voted for the bill to prevent amnesty, which he

also opposes, and which he had explained. If I didn't understand the

harms that can come from the welfare state to the people it is

supposed to be helping, I'd probably be shocked by his opposition to

it and it would seem to stem from blatant lack of compassion, but IMO

the welfare state often destroys the communities it is meant to help.

I think RP's big picture view should be kept in mind, which is that

the immigration system needs to be overhauled and made more fair (he

repeatedly says people from all countries should be the same, so the

point about terrorist countries in his ad is confusing) and that sound

monetary policy would restore living standards and increase the demand

for labor and we could have booming legal immigration and no hostility

from Americans.

Folks at Zmag always point out how real wages have gone nowhere in the

last three to four decades and I really do believe that monetary

policy is at the bottom of this and at the bottom of the massive

wealth disparities that we see now and that Ron would be able to

restore the type of more even wealth distribution and rising living

standards we had in the post WWI-1971 era.

Last paragraph: I think Ron would decrease the environment for

predatory capitalism. He'd ban corporate lobbying by companies that

procure government contracts. There's the end of the

military-industrial complex -- predatory captailism if I'd ever seen

it. He'd get rid of the Federal Reserve and its paper money policy,

whereby wealth is transferred from the lower and middle class to

international bankers and their favored industries -- predatory

capitalism if I'd ever seen it. And so on.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Last paragraph: I think Ron would decrease the environment for

> predatory capitalism. He'd ban corporate lobbying by companies that

> procure government contracts. There's the end of the

> military-industrial complex -- predatory captailism if I'd ever seen

> it. He'd get rid of the Federal Reserve and its paper money policy,

> whereby wealth is transferred from the lower and middle class to

> international bankers and their favored industries -- predatory

> capitalism if I'd ever seen it. And so on.

Not to mention, he'd get us out of the WTO, the World Bank and the

IMF. The folks at Zmag KNOW that these are the absolute heart and gut

of predatory capitalism. Kucinich shares these positions with as

well. Ron stated on Jay Leno last night that Kucinich was his

favorite Democrat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Also, RP opposes all government mandates on hospitals and maintains

that they are closing because of them. The position makes sense. In

the absence of these mandates, charitable hospitals and free clinics

fill in the gap. These can often operate at reduced cost and can

handle the charity, whereas hospitals designed to take health

insurance have higher costs. Especially before government got into

medicine, charitable hospitals could higher doctors at very low rates.

Ron himself worked at a charitable hospital for $3/hr. That's

why they could afford to treat people who can't pay! But if you give

mandates, and the (some of the) hospitals close, that's compassion

with unintended consequences, and the result itself is not

compassionate. His position is that rather than mandating hospitals

take care of illegal immigrants, allow the charitable hospitals to

take care of them, since they are best suited to do so.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I do sometimes forget that you know everything. Sorry.

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

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

> On 1/8/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90 & ItemID=14678

>

> A few problems with this article:

>

> First paragraph: It asserts the amount of capital is finite. This is

> incorrect. Capital is generated when it is produced. Technology,

> factories, accumulated research -- these are all properly considered

> capital. You research something, you produce new knowledge; this is

> capital. You build a factory, you've produced new capital. Capital

> is formed from the rearrangement of previous capital. Steel is

> capital, but you've created new capital when you make a machine out of

> it. Making the machine increases the total amount of goods and

> services that can be produced and generally ncreases living standards

> for everyone. Mating a cow produces a new cow and increases the

> amount of milk we can drink. Building a portable chicken tractor

> increases safety and increases pasturing, and thus a higher quality

> egg or meat. Whether the society is " capitalism " or some form of

> voluntary or forced collectivism, capital is not finite but

> continually formed by economic activity.

>

> Second paragraph: He associates Ron with Ayn Rand and the

> objectivists. Ron is associated more with Rothbardian

> libertarianism, and Rothbard referred to Ayn Rand's followers as a

> cult. This school is also very pro-peace based not simply on

> nationalism but on the ethics of killing innocent people, whereas Ayn

> Rand followers are very pro-war, and consider us to have no moral

> responsibility for killing innocent people.

>

> Fourth paragraph: I think the absolute low-point of Ron 's

> campaign is his stance on illegal immigration, so I partly agree with

> the author. However, it is untrue that he supports a border fence; he

> opposes the idea but voted for the bill to prevent amnesty, which he

> also opposes, and which he had explained. If I didn't understand the

> harms that can come from the welfare state to the people it is

> supposed to be helping, I'd probably be shocked by his opposition to

> it and it would seem to stem from blatant lack of compassion, but IMO

> the welfare state often destroys the communities it is meant to help.

> I think RP's big picture view should be kept in mind, which is that

> the immigration system needs to be overhauled and made more fair (he

> repeatedly says people from all countries should be the same, so the

> point about terrorist countries in his ad is confusing) and that sound

> monetary policy would restore living standards and increase the demand

> for labor and we could have booming legal immigration and no hostility

> from Americans.

>

> Folks at Zmag always point out how real wages have gone nowhere in the

> last three to four decades and I really do believe that monetary

> policy is at the bottom of this and at the bottom of the massive

> wealth disparities that we see now and that Ron would be able to

> restore the type of more even wealth distribution and rising living

> standards we had in the post WWI-1971 era.

>

> Last paragraph: I think Ron would decrease the environment for

> predatory capitalism. He'd ban corporate lobbying by companies that

> procure government contracts. There's the end of the

> military-industrial complex -- predatory captailism if I'd ever seen

> it. He'd get rid of the Federal Reserve and its paper money policy,

> whereby wealth is transferred from the lower and middle class to

> international bankers and their favored industries -- predatory

> capitalism if I'd ever seen it. And so on.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

I can¹t ignore his yes votes on building a fence along the

> Mexican border,

I don't know when he voted for this, but in one of his recent interviews he

said he doesn't think a border fence is a very good idea.

Suze

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> I don't know when he voted for this, but in one of his recent interviews he

> said he doesn't think a border fence is a very good idea.

He actually called it " offensive. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

" voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700

miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. "

wikipedia

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

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

> On 1/8/08, Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

>

> > I don't know when he voted for this, but in one of his recent interviews he

> > said he doesn't think a border fence is a very good idea.

>

> He actually called it " offensive. "

>

>

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> " voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700

> miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and

> Mexico. " wikipedia

============

Stossel: You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron : Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence

(requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like

amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I

don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

-- Interview I linked to earlier.

===========

Chris

[Guest guest]

He seems to have a history of voting for and proposing legislation that he finds

offensive....

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

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

> On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > " voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700

> > miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and

> > Mexico. " wikipedia

>

> ============

> Stossel: You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

> Ron : Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence

> (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like

> amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I

> don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

> -- Interview I linked to earlier.

> ===========

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> He seems to have a history of voting for and proposing legislation that he

> finds offensive....

This is the only compromise vote I've seen from him come up in

conversation here.

What I've seen a lot of is erroneous information about his positions

circulating.

For example:

-- He'd replace the income tax with a regressive consumption tax.

Actually, he'd work toward the goal over time of eliminating it and

replacing it with nothing, and in the mean time he proposes reducing

it by offering taxes for developing alternative fuel technology,

schooling and medicine, low-income people like his proposal to

eliminate the tax on tips for waitresses, etc.

-- He supports a flag-burning amendment; he oppposes it.

-- He supports banning gay marriage; actually, he supports the

government getting out of marriage.

And so on.

Chris

[Guest guest]

He is fine with individual states banning gay marriage isn't he? He's not so

much against government involvement - he's simply against federal government

involvement.

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

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

> On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > He seems to have a history of voting for and proposing legislation that he

> > finds offensive....

>

> This is the only compromise vote I've seen from him come up in

> conversation here.

>

> What I've seen a lot of is erroneous information about his positions

> circulating.

>

> For example:

>

> -- He'd replace the income tax with a regressive consumption tax.

> Actually, he'd work toward the goal over time of eliminating it and

> replacing it with nothing, and in the mean time he proposes reducing

> it by offering taxes for developing alternative fuel technology,

> schooling and medicine, low-income people like his proposal to

> eliminate the tax on tips for waitresses, etc.

> -- He supports a flag-burning amendment; he oppposes it.

> -- He supports banning gay marriage; actually, he supports the

> government getting out of marriage.

>

> And so on.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

His proposal to declare war isn't in that category? Sorry, but I'm not

particularly fond of his explanation....constitutionally over real human lives

is an offensive argument to me...

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

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

> On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > He seems to have a history of voting for and proposing legislation that he

> > finds offensive....

>

> This is the only compromise vote I've seen from him come up in

> conversation here.

>

> What I've seen a lot of is erroneous information about his positions

> circulating.

>

> For example:

>

> -- He'd replace the income tax with a regressive consumption tax.

> Actually, he'd work toward the goal over time of eliminating it and

> replacing it with nothing, and in the mean time he proposes reducing

> it by offering taxes for developing alternative fuel technology,

> schooling and medicine, low-income people like his proposal to

> eliminate the tax on tips for waitresses, etc.

> -- He supports a flag-burning amendment; he oppposes it.

> -- He supports banning gay marriage; actually, he supports the

> government getting out of marriage.

>

> And so on.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > He seems to have a history of voting for and proposing legislation

> that he

> > finds offensive....

>

> This is the only compromise vote I've seen from him come up in

> conversation here.

Uh, no, you said that his proposed bill declaring war on Iraq was one

of those through-the-looking-glass things, as were his anti-flag-

burning proposals. OTOH, technically speaking you may be right if

they never actually came to a vote, but Gene didn't actually make that

distinction, so I think his point stands.

> -- He supports banning gay marriage; actually, he supports the

> government getting out of marriage.

Didn't he say something to the effect that no state should be forced

to recognize the gay marriage of another state? While it's true that

such a statement is technically consistent with a position that the

federal government has no business involving itself in the question of

marriage at all, the way it's formulated pretty strongly indicates a

personal objection to gay marriage.

More generally, I think the " Ron believes that's up to the

individual states, not the federal government " defense against a wide

variety of assertions about his beliefs is in effect something of a

smokescreen. I believe state-based welfare would be technically

consistent with his state-power political platform, for example, but I

don't think any reasonable person with even a cursory awareness of his

positions could possibly argue that he isn't personally and

philosophically opposed to welfare regardless of where it comes from.

(Except maybe when it's called " charity " and it comes from a church,

but that's arguably a whole other conversation.)

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> He is fine with individual states banning gay marriage isn't he? He's not so

> much against government involvement - he's simply against federal

> government involvement.

No, he has a basic position against any government involvement in

marriage. He thinks that the state should grant marriage neither to

heterosexuals nor to homosexuals, but that both should be cases of

voluntary contracts equally enforced by the state, and those

individuals or whatever collectives they voluntary associate with such

as churches should dictate whether it is called " marriage " or not.

However, he also opposes all federal efforts to tell states how to

regulate marriage, so he would not impose this from the federal level,

because he considers it to violate the ninth and tenth amendments that

give the states the right to regulate these matters. That said, he'd

also have the bully pulpit as president and could speak out in favor

of his personal position on it, which would appeal both to social

conservatives and to social liberals.

>His proposal to declare war isn't in that category? Sorry, but I'm

not particularly

>fond of his explanation....constitutionally over real human lives is

an offensive

>argument to me...

No it isn't, because he didn't vote for it! He voted against it, and

spoke out against it.

His reason for proposing the declaration was to use it as a means to

draw attention to the fact that the war was unconstitutional.

His reason for opposing the war was because it was an unjust war.

That is why, in addition to pointing out the unconstitutionality, he

also points out the loss of both American and Iraqi lives, talks about

its immorality, its illegality under international law, its

aggressiveness, and so on.

So there is no constitution over humans. He is highlighting the

compatability between the constitutional restraints on war and the

immorality of an aggressive war.

Chris

[Guest guest]

" he also opposes all federal efforts to tell states how to regulate marriage " -

so therefore, " he is fine with individual states banning gay marriage " .

How f*in clear can that be?

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

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

> On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > He is fine with individual states banning gay marriage isn't he? He's not so

> > much against government involvement - he's simply against federal

> > government involvement.

>

> No, he has a basic position against any government involvement in

> marriage. He thinks that the state should grant marriage neither to

> heterosexuals nor to homosexuals, but that both should be cases of

> voluntary contracts equally enforced by the state, and those

> individuals or whatever collectives they voluntary associate with such

> as churches should dictate whether it is called " marriage " or not.

>

> However, he also opposes all federal efforts to tell states how to

> regulate marriage, so he would not impose this from the federal level,

> because he considers it to violate the ninth and tenth amendments that

> give the states the right to regulate these matters. That said, he'd

> also have the bully pulpit as president and could speak out in favor

> of his personal position on it, which would appeal both to social

> conservatives and to social liberals.

>

> >His proposal to declare war isn't in that category? Sorry, but I'm

> not particularly

> >fond of his explanation....constitutionally over real human lives is

> an offensive

> >argument to me...

>

> No it isn't, because he didn't vote for it! He voted against it, and

> spoke out against it.

>

> His reason for proposing the declaration was to use it as a means to

> draw attention to the fact that the war was unconstitutional.

>

> His reason for opposing the war was because it was an unjust war.

> That is why, in addition to pointing out the unconstitutionality, he

> also points out the loss of both American and Iraqi lives, talks about

> its immorality, its illegality under international law, its

> aggressiveness, and so on.

>

> So there is no constitution over humans. He is highlighting the

> compatability between the constitutional restraints on war and the

> immorality of an aggressive war.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > This is the only compromise vote I've seen from him come up in

> > conversation here.

> Uh, no, you said that his proposed bill declaring war on Iraq was one

> of those through-the-looking-glass things, as were his anti-flag-

> burning proposals.

No, they were not in the least bit analogous. In the case of the

fence, he voted for it and spoke out in favor of it, not because of

the fence, but because of the position against amnesty.

In the case of the declaration and the flag burning amendment, he did

not vote for them and spoke out against them. He proposed the

declaration, and got up and said, (paraphrasing) " Look, I'm not going

to vote for this declaration because it is an unjust aggressive war,

but if you are going to wage an unjust and aggressive war, at least do

it constitutionally. " And again with the flag-burning amendment, he

proposed it and got up and said " I consider this amendment to be

unnecessary and dangerous, but you see that to do what you are trying

to do by legislation, you actually have to amend the first amendment. "

> OTOH, technically speaking you may be right if

> they never actually came to a vote, but Gene didn't actually make that

> distinction, so I think his point stands.

You've got to be kidding me. So if he speaks out against it and says

he won't vote for it, but it doesn't come to a vote, Gene's point

stands? But if it came to a vote, and he had the chance to vote no

like he said he would, Gene's point wouldn't stand?

> > -- He supports banning gay marriage; actually, he supports the

> > government getting out of marriage.

> Didn't he say something to the effect that no state should be forced

> to recognize the gay marriage of another state?

Yes, on constitutional grounds.

> While it's true that

> such a statement is technically consistent with a position that the

> federal government has no business involving itself in the question of

> marriage at all, the way it's formulated pretty strongly indicates a

> personal objection to gay marriage.

His position is against ALL government getting out of marriage.

However, the federal government does not have the constitutional right

to force states to adopt Ron 's libertarian principles.

I will again post this Stossel interview snippet:

==========

JS: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

RP: Sure.

JS: If the state says " we believe in this " ?

RP: Sure, they can do whatever they want and call it whatever they

want just as long as they don't impose their relationship on somebody

else. They can't make *me personally* accept what they do, but they

can, gay couples can do whatever they want. As a matter of fact, I'd

like to see *all governments* out of the marriage question. I don't

think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function. And

there was a time when only churches dealt with marriage and they

determined what it was, but 100 years ago or so for " health reasons "

they claimed that the state would protect us if they knew more about

our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to

get married, and I don't agree with that

JS: Prostitution.

RP: I think when you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and

you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. So

if they do things that you don't like and you might find morally

repugnant, I as an individual, I don't make that judgment, so I don't

believe government can legislate virtue.

==================

He goes on to point out that if we eliminated the drug war and stopped

boosting up the cost of currently illegal drugs, we wouldn't be

driving so many people into prostitution.

> More generally, I think the " Ron believes that's up to the

> individual states, not the federal government " defense against a wide

> variety of assertions about his beliefs is in effect something of a

> smokescreen.

I am aware of that, but I don't see any evidence that he is being

dishonest. Why on earth would he lie about supporting legalizing

drugs, prostitution, and so on, if he didn't believe it? I mean, it

will help him gain some votes in the libertarian crowd, but it

certainly isn't going to help him win the Republican nomination.

>I believe state-based welfare would be technically

> consistent with his state-power political platform, for example, but I

> don't think any reasonable person with even a cursory awareness of his

> positions could possibly argue that he isn't personally and

> philosophically opposed to welfare regardless of where it comes from.

> (Except maybe when it's called " charity " and it comes from a church,

> but that's arguably a whole other conversation.)

Yet, he would not force any state to abandon a welfare program,

because he has absolutely no authority as a congressman or president

to do so.

So, for example, when someone asked him in the NH town hall if he

would support the " separation of school and state, " (who was obviously

a supporter of this), he said that it is an interesting idea, but he

would have no constitutional authority as president to impose that on

local communities, and some local communities might wish to do that

and others not. He went to public school and all his kids went to

public school, so he does not oppose public school, but he opposes the

unconstitution federal involvement in education.

When he has been asked about a multitude of other such positions he

has answered similarly. However, he also is an advocate of Austrian

economics and the idea that truly free markets (the type that Noam

Chomsky says would never exist for a second because businesses would

not allow it) lead to prosperity and the eradication of poverty, and

that the freer, the closer to this.

So yes, on a personal philosophical level he opposes corporate and

social welfare, but at a constitutional level, he can only get the

federal government out of it as president or congressman. And, of

course, to use his influence to spread the ideas he believes in.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> " he also opposes all federal efforts to tell states how to regulate

> marriage " - so therefore, " he is fine with individual states banning gay

> marriage " .

> How f*in clear can that be?

Yes, he supports the constitutional rights of states to regulate

things in ways that are opposed to his personal philosophies. Though,

if he is willing to stick up for unpopular ideas while he is running,

he will certainly be willing to stick up for them as president, and

thus would use the power of influence to propagate the idea of total

separation of marriage and state.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Right - so he's absolutely, 100% ok with States passing all sorts of repressive

laws, as long as the federal government doesn't get involved. that takes

priority for him over any personal ideas of justice, fairness, racism, etc...

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

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

> On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > " he also opposes all federal efforts to tell states how to regulate

> > marriage " - so therefore, " he is fine with individual states banning gay

> > marriage " .

>

> > How f*in clear can that be?

>

> Yes, he supports the constitutional rights of states to regulate

> things in ways that are opposed to his personal philosophies. Though,

> if he is willing to stick up for unpopular ideas while he is running,

> he will certainly be willing to stick up for them as president, and

> thus would use the power of influence to propagate the idea of total

> separation of marriage and state.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> You've got to be kidding me. So if he speaks out against it and says

> he won't vote for it, but it doesn't come to a vote, Gene's point

> stands? But if it came to a vote, and he had the chance to vote no

> like he said he would, Gene's point wouldn't stand?

Ah, I see where the confusion comes from. I interpreted Gene's

statement one way and you interpreted it another;

>> He seems to have a history of voting for and proposing legislation

>> that he finds offensive....

I didn't take the 'and' to mean 'both proposing and voting for

individual pieces of legislation that he finds offensive', which of

course wouldn't include legislation he proposes but votes against. I

assumed Gene meant 'voting for and/or proposing', in which case the

war bill and other such legislation would definitely qualify.

> > While it's true that

> > such a statement is technically consistent with a position that the

> > federal government has no business involving itself in the

> question of

> > marriage at all, the way it's formulated pretty strongly indicates a

> > personal objection to gay marriage.

>

> His position is against ALL government getting out of marriage.

> However, the federal government does not have the constitutional right

> to force states to adopt Ron 's libertarian principles.

Then it sounds even more likely that he is personally opposed to gay

marriage, because religious institutions are overwhelmingly more

likely to oppose it than secular society.

There's another problem with his position (as you present it) though.

He says all non-religious marriage should be handled as contracts

rather than " marriage " per se, which I suppose is a supportable

position... but then he says that states (and communities) shouldn't

be forced to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to. Well, if

gay marriage is just a contract, then this means that states (and

communities) can refuse to recognize any contracts they don't like!

> I am aware of that, but I don't see any evidence that he is being

> dishonest. Why on earth would he lie about supporting legalizing

> drugs, prostitution, and so on, if he didn't believe it? I mean, it

> will help him gain some votes in the libertarian crowd, but it

> certainly isn't going to help him win the Republican nomination.

Has he ever said what he personally thinks about gay marriage?

At any rate, the issue is less his dishonesty than the inadequacy of

defenses offered by his supporters.

> >I believe state-based welfare would be technically

> > consistent with his state-power political platform, for example,

> but I

> > don't think any reasonable person with even a cursory awareness of

> his

> > positions could possibly argue that he isn't personally and

> > philosophically opposed to welfare regardless of where it comes

> from.

> > (Except maybe when it's called " charity " and it comes from a church,

> > but that's arguably a whole other conversation.)

>

> Yet, he would not force any state to abandon a welfare program,

> because he has absolutely no authority as a congressman or president

> to do so.

I'm not saying he would! My point is that the states'-rights argument

is not the sum total of his political beliefs and philosophy, and that

responding to many questions and assertions about his politics with

" states' rights " isn't fully meaningful.

> So, for example, when someone asked him in the NH town hall if he

> would support the " separation of school and state, " (who was obviously

> a supporter of this), he said that it is an interesting idea, but he

> would have no constitutional authority as president to impose that on

> local communities, and some local communities might wish to do that

> and others not. He went to public school and all his kids went to

> public school, so he does not oppose public school, but he opposes the

> unconstitution federal involvement in education.

Calling it an " interesting idea " is a dodge, plain and simple. I

cannot believe he has no opinion on it, yet he refused to actually say

whether he personally believes in it. Separation of church and state

is a philosophical principle, not merely some words in the

constitution that have limited and specific purview.

> However, he also is an advocate of Austrian

> economics and the idea that truly free markets (the type that Noam

> Chomsky says would never exist for a second because businesses would

> not allow it) lead to prosperity and the eradication of poverty, and

> that the freer, the closer to this.

Yeah, well, I have many disagreements with Noam Chomsky, but I agree

completely with him on that point.

> So yes, on a personal philosophical level he opposes corporate and

> social welfare, but at a constitutional level, he can only get the

> federal government out of it as president or congressman. And, of

> course, to use his influence to spread the ideas he believes in.

You just made part of my general point for me! It's important to know

what he personally believes in (besides strict constitutionalism,

which after all doesn't account for how he might want to change the

constitution) because not only will his interpretation of the

constitution be influenced by his personal beliefs, but he'll try to

spread the ideas he believes in!

-

[Guest guest]

>

> I didn't take the 'and' to mean 'both proposing and voting for

> individual pieces of legislation that he finds offensive', which of

> course wouldn't include legislation he proposes but votes against. I

> assumed Gene meant 'voting for and/or proposing', in which case the

> war bill and other such legislation would definitely qualify.

>

Correct. short for 'proposing legislation that he finds offensive' and 'voting

for legislation that he finds offensive'. The stronger interpretation is rather

absurd, but allows haggling to no purpose.

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> Right - so he's absolutely, 100% ok with States passing all sorts of

> repressive laws, as long as the federal government doesn't get involved.

> that takes priority for him over any personal ideas of justice, fairness,

> racism, etc...

Not entirely, because state laws promoting racism, for example,

violate the 14the amendment.

But yes, he believes in upholding the single oath of office he makes

to uphold the constitution -- which makes it easier to get your

desired result at the state and local level, which often promotes

justice and fairness in many cases. Of course, if you want

unconstitutional wars and civil liberties violations and so on, then

you can throw out the principle of upholding oaths and contracts and

the rule of law and the constitutional process to get your way, and

let the people who hate justice and fairness and freedom get their way

too. That's what happens when you just disregard law and contract

instead of working within it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> >> He seems to have a history of voting for and proposing legislation

> >> that he finds offensive....

> I didn't take the 'and' to mean 'both proposing and voting for

> individual pieces of legislation that he finds offensive', which of

> course wouldn't include legislation he proposes but votes against. I

> assumed Gene meant 'voting for and/or proposing', in which case the

> war bill and other such legislation would definitely qualify.

I didn't get to that level of analysis, but it seemed implicit that he

thought RP was *supporting* the bills he had proposed, including these

ones that he spoke out against. Otherwise, I'm not sure what his

point would have been.

> > His position is against ALL government getting out of marriage.

> > However, the federal government does not have the constitutional right

> > to force states to adopt Ron 's libertarian principles.

> Then it sounds even more likely that he is personally opposed to gay

> marriage, because religious institutions are overwhelmingly more

> likely to oppose it than secular society.

So? I'm opposed to gay marriage too, if you mean within my church and

in the context of what I believe marriage to be, in a mystical,

theological, ecclesiological, etc, sense. But I'm not opposed to the

right of gays to engage in marriage in the sociological and

contractual sense. And that is what is at the crux of RP's

libertarian philosophy -- that you can't make people accept their

behavior personally, but you allow them the choice to engage in it and

form the voluntary contracts they wish.

That churches oppose gay marriage (though not always) does not put

individuals who wish to engage in it at any disadvantage, because the

church would have no preferential legal standing. So the individuals

could volutarily contract a marriage and call it a marriage

themselves, and have the exact same benefit as two individuals who

contract a marriage and have their church pronounce it a marriage.

But in both cases, the state does not pronounce it a marriage, so

everyone -- those who want gay marriage, and those who oppose the

state endorsing it -- gets their way.

> There's another problem with his position (as you present it) though.

> He says all non-religious marriage should be handled as contracts

> rather than " marriage " per se, which I suppose is a supportable

> position... but then he says that states (and communities) shouldn't

> be forced to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to. Well, if

> gay marriage is just a contract, then this means that states (and

> communities) can refuse to recognize any contracts they don't like!

You're confusing two different positions. One is his " ideal society. "

The other is his belief in upholding his *own* contract, which he

makes with the government and swears to uphold the constitution when

he is elected into office. The latter contract prohibits him, as

congressman or president, from using legal force to impose his own

ideal society on a state. However, this does not stop him from using

the bully pulpit, so to speak, for advocating this position, which

many people once exposed to it may eventually see as a reasonable

compromise that can satisfy all parties.

> > I am aware of that, but I don't see any evidence that he is being

> > dishonest. Why on earth would he lie about supporting legalizing

> > drugs, prostitution, and so on, if he didn't believe it? I mean, it

> > will help him gain some votes in the libertarian crowd, but it

> > certainly isn't going to help him win the Republican nomination.

> Has he ever said what he personally thinks about gay marriage?

I imagine he opposes his church adopting it, but he doesn't talk about

his religious views often except when pressed, because it finds it

distasteful and anti-Christian to wear one's religion on one's sleeve,

so to speak.

> At any rate, the issue is less his dishonesty than the inadequacy of

> defenses offered by his supporters.

You say his belief in constitutionalism is a smoke-screen rather than

a genuine belief in upholding his sworn oath to uphold the

constitution, so it seems that is a matter of dishonesty and also that

the burden of proof would lean on you in the accusation of such

dishonesty.

> > Yet, he would not force any state to abandon a welfare program,

> > because he has absolutely no authority as a congressman or president

> > to do so.

> I'm not saying he would! My point is that the states'-rights argument

> is not the sum total of his political beliefs and philosophy, and that

> responding to many questions and assertions about his politics with

> " states' rights " isn't fully meaningful.

Of course it isn't *fully* meaningful. I agree with you. It is also

not fully meaningful to ignore it. Also, I didn't mean to imply you

were saying he would; I was just trying to outline his position for

the record.

> > So, for example, when someone asked him in the NH town hall if he

> > would support the " separation of school and state, " (who was obviously

> > a supporter of this), he said that it is an interesting idea, but he

> > would have no constitutional authority as president to impose that on

> > local communities, and some local communities might wish to do that

> > and others not. He went to public school and all his kids went to

> > public school, so he does not oppose public school, but he opposes the

> > unconstitution federal involvement in education.

> Calling it an " interesting idea " is a dodge, plain and simple. I

> cannot believe he has no opinion on it, yet he refused to actually say

> whether he personally believes in it. Separation of church and state

> is a philosophical principle, not merely some words in the

> constitution that have limited and specific purview.

Give me a break, . What about the famous leftist anarchists who

have said that, although they believe collectivism would produce a

superior society to individualism, true freedom would allow both types

of societies to operate and compete, so that whichever is superior

would become evident? It is not a dodge to say, " I am attracted to

this idea, but there are also other models that might work, and we

should allow both to operate and it can be debated which is best. "

[snip]

> > So yes, on a personal philosophical level he opposes corporate and

> > social welfare, but at a constitutional level, he can only get the

> > federal government out of it as president or congressman. And, of

> > course, to use his influence to spread the ideas he believes in.

> You just made part of my general point for me!

All that would seem to mean is that we agree, so that's a good thing. :-)

> It's important to know

> what he personally believes in (besides strict constitutionalism,

> which after all doesn't account for how he might want to change the

> constitution) because not only will his interpretation of the

> constitution be influenced by his personal beliefs, but he'll try to

> spread the ideas he believes in!

I agree.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

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

> On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > Right - so he's absolutely, 100% ok with States passing all sorts of

> > repressive laws, as long as the federal government doesn't get involved.

> > that takes priority for him over any personal ideas of justice, fairness,

> > racism, etc...

>

> Not entirely, because state laws promoting racism, for example,

> violate the 14the amendment.

But he's cool with it, as long as there isn't a direct violation - and how

exactly would the federal government prevent violations of this?

> But yes, he believes in upholding the single oath of office he makes

> to uphold the constitution -- which makes it easier to get your

> desired result at the state and local level, which often promotes

> justice and fairness in many cases. Of course, if you want

> unconstitutional wars and civil liberties violations and so on, then

> you can throw out the principle of upholding oaths and contracts and

> the rule of law and the constitutional process to get your way, and

> let the people who hate justice and fairness and freedom get their way

> too. That's what happens when you just disregard law and contract

> instead of working within it.

I'm just sick and tired of this bull. You know, it's not entirely evident to us

non-libertarian fanatics, that this guy Ron wouldn't simply dismantle what

protections that people have on the federal level. I don't have the energy or

time to do this, but you are absolutely full of shit, and I don't care at this

point whether I'm banned from this list. You're the moderator, and at some

point, you should just shut up.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

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

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

> On 1/8/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>

....

> > Then it sounds even more likely that he is personally opposed to gay

> > marriage, because religious institutions are overwhelmingly more

> > likely to oppose it than secular society.

>

> So? I'm opposed to gay marriage too, if you mean within my church and

> in the context of what I believe marriage to be, in a mystical,

> theological, ecclesiological, etc, sense. But I'm not opposed to the

> right of gays to engage in marriage in the sociological and

> contractual sense. And that is what is at the crux of RP's

> libertarian philosophy -- that you can't make people accept their

> behavior personally, but you allow them the choice to engage in it and

> form the voluntary contracts they wish.

then you're a bigot, who just figures that you don't personally care whether

'these people' indulge in this 'immoral behavior', but it's fine for individual

states to enforce this Christian bigotry.

>

> That churches oppose gay marriage (though not always) does not put

> individuals who wish to engage in it at any disadvantage, because the

> church would have no preferential legal standing. So the individuals

> could volutarily contract a marriage and call it a marriage

> themselves, and have the exact same benefit as two individuals who

> contract a marriage and have their church pronounce it a marriage.

> But in both cases, the state does not pronounce it a marriage, so

> everyone -- those who want gay marriage, and those who oppose the

> state endorsing it -- gets their way.

>

> > There's another problem with his position (as you present it) though.

> > He says all non-religious marriage should be handled as contracts

> > rather than " marriage " per se, which I suppose is a supportable

> > position... but then he says that states (and communities) shouldn't

> > be forced to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to. Well, if

> > gay marriage is just a contract, then this means that states (and

> > communities) can refuse to recognize any contracts they don't like!

>

> You're confusing two different positions. One is his " ideal society. "

> The other is his belief in upholding his *own* contract, which he

> makes with the government and swears to uphold the constitution when

> he is elected into office. The latter contract prohibits him, as

> congressman or president, from using legal force to impose his own

> ideal society on a state. However, this does not stop him from using

> the bully pulpit, so to speak, for advocating this position, which

> many people once exposed to it may eventually see as a reasonable

> compromise that can satisfy all parties.

>

> > > I am aware of that, but I don't see any evidence that he is being

> > > dishonest. Why on earth would he lie about supporting legalizing

> > > drugs, prostitution, and so on, if he didn't believe it? I mean, it

> > > will help him gain some votes in the libertarian crowd, but it

> > > certainly isn't going to help him win the Republican nomination.

>

> > Has he ever said what he personally thinks about gay marriage?

>

> I imagine he opposes his church adopting it, but he doesn't talk about

> his religious views often except when pressed, because it finds it

> distasteful and anti-Christian to wear one's religion on one's sleeve,

> so to speak.

>

> > At any rate, the issue is less his dishonesty than the inadequacy of

> > defenses offered by his supporters.

>

> You say his belief in constitutionalism is a smoke-screen rather than

> a genuine belief in upholding his sworn oath to uphold the

> constitution, so it seems that is a matter of dishonesty and also that

> the burden of proof would lean on you in the accusation of such

> dishonesty.

>

> > > Yet, he would not force any state to abandon a welfare program,

> > > because he has absolutely no authority as a congressman or president

> > > to do so.

>

> > I'm not saying he would! My point is that the states'-rights argument

> > is not the sum total of his political beliefs and philosophy, and that

> > responding to many questions and assertions about his politics with

> > " states' rights " isn't fully meaningful.

>

> Of course it isn't *fully* meaningful. I agree with you. It is also

> not fully meaningful to ignore it. Also, I didn't mean to imply you

> were saying he would; I was just trying to outline his position for

> the record.

>

> > > So, for example, when someone asked him in the NH town hall if he

> > > would support the " separation of school and state, " (who was obviously

> > > a supporter of this), he said that it is an interesting idea, but he

> > > would have no constitutional authority as president to impose that on

> > > local communities, and some local communities might wish to do that

> > > and others not. He went to public school and all his kids went to

> > > public school, so he does not oppose public school, but he opposes the

> > > unconstitution federal involvement in education.

>

> > Calling it an " interesting idea " is a dodge, plain and simple. I

> > cannot believe he has no opinion on it, yet he refused to actually say

> > whether he personally believes in it. Separation of church and state

> > is a philosophical principle, not merely some words in the

> > constitution that have limited and specific purview.

>

> Give me a break, . What about the famous leftist anarchists who

> have said that, although they believe collectivism would produce a

> superior society to individualism, true freedom would allow both types

> of societies to operate and compete, so that whichever is superior

> would become evident? It is not a dodge to say, " I am attracted to

> this idea, but there are also other models that might work, and we

> should allow both to operate and it can be debated which is best. "

>

> [snip]

>

> > > So yes, on a personal philosophical level he opposes corporate and

> > > social welfare, but at a constitutional level, he can only get the

> > > federal government out of it as president or congressman. And, of

> > > course, to use his influence to spread the ideas he believes in.

>

> > You just made part of my general point for me!

>

> All that would seem to mean is that we agree, so that's a good thing. :-)

>

> > It's important to know

> > what he personally believes in (besides strict constitutionalism,

> > which after all doesn't account for how he might want to change the

> > constitution) because not only will his interpretation of the

> > constitution be influenced by his personal beliefs, but he'll try to

> > spread the ideas he believes in!

>

> I agree.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> then you're a bigot, who just figures that you don't personally care whether

> 'these people' indulge in this 'immoral behavior', but it's fine for

> individual states to enforce this Christian bigotry.

No, that's not what I believe at all!

Chris