1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Ron Paul Responds to Michael Moore

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Shovel Face, Nov 3, 2009.

  1. Shovel Face

    Shovel Face Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    724
    Likes Received:
    44
    It's a fallacy to say someone has a right to someone else services.

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1Hn6ad4_FzM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1Hn6ad4_FzM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
     
  2. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,272
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    I can't see the video, but I will take issue with your statement.

    We can say we have all the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but without the services of soldiers and judges and countless other citizens working towards those ends, the Constitution would be nothing but paper.
     
  3. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    After the stupid lead in to the video from the OP I can't get myself to watch Ron Paul, although he can be entertaining when in the presidential debates with other Republicans.

    I guess you could say that no one has the right to anything. So what.

    The morality and ethics of this has been settled for generations. A child dying from lack of food in front of a mansion owned by rich libertarians has no right to any of their food. The rich libertarians have an abstract ideology which helps them feel comfortable about the situation. So what.

    Religions, societies and families throughout the ages have decided differently. Hitler also would say that the disabled or Jews have no "right" to anything. Extreme libertarianism (and most of it is pretty extreme) has about as much moral standing as Nazism despite the attempts by wierdos like Ayn Rand to justify the "virtue of selfishness".
     
  4. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    42,710
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Can't see the video. I think its an interesting philosophical topic, however I guess this doesn't mean much to Dr. Paul anymore.

     
  5. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost not wrong
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    47,267
    Likes Received:
    16,710
    Correction: It is a fallacy to say someone has a right to someone else's services, without compensation
     
  6. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    34,618
    Likes Received:
    33,558
    The OP is an interesting case study in the imitative fallacy.
     
  7. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    Aggh, you have to make things so complicated with your tricky conditions and all.
     
  8. rhester

    rhester Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,600
    Likes Received:
    104
    Glad to hear him use corporatism to describe our government
     
  9. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,774
    Likes Received:
    3,388
    Glenn Beck Peddles Populism for Rich Guys

    By Brad Reed, Commonweal Institute. Posted October 31, 2009.



    The Fox News shock jock weaves a tale of wealthy elites who are victims of tyrannical government hell-bent on taking their hard-earned money. Tools



    One curious consequence of the Democrats’ electoral triumph last year has been the rise of Glenn Beck, a right-wing populist whose daily ravings on Fox News have helped inspire the anti-government “tea party” rallies across the country. In a lot of ways, Beck’s popularity reflects the current emotional state of American conservatives.

    When they ran the entire government just a few short years ago, it was fashionable for conservatives to tune into braying, overconfident bullies such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. Now that they’re totally shut out, however, they’ve found solace in the conspiratorial and weepy Beck, who stokes their fears that shadowy elements within the government are plotting to end freedom as we know it.

    The irony is that Beck is only really opposed to big government when Republicans aren’t controlling it. For instance, he has no issues with allowing the government to torture prisoners and is supportive of police brutality. And those big government bailouts of the financial industry that Beck rails against on a regular basis? Back when George W. Bush was president, Beck actually chided Congress for not giving more money to rescue the banks.

    So Beck isn’t against big government. Rather, he’s opposed to government action that helps the poor at the expense of the rich. For instance, have you ever seen a conservative oppose tax cuts in any form? Well, Glenn Beck does, but only if they’re being given to poor people. Indeed, when economist Jeff Frankel appeared on Beck’s show to advocate giving tax cuts “to low-income, working Americans,” Beck compared him to Josef Stalin and accused him of trying to “redistribute the wealth.”

    In his own way, Beck is tapping into the American tradition of rich-guy populism where wealthy elites portray themselves as noble victims of a tyrannical government hell-bent on taking their hard-earned money and giving it to unworthy poor people. Novelist Ayn Rand is primarily responsible for creating the modern incarnation of rich-guy populism, as her books portrayed productive capitalists pitched in a constant struggle against governments, unions and other organizations that inhibited their ability to have a limitless income. In Rand’s calculus, one was either a “rational being” motivated by one’s own self-interest to be productive and make money; or a “suicidal animal” who only survived by sponging off the work of the producers. Rand was fond of describing such “unproductive” people as “looters” and “parasites incapable of survival, who exist by destroying those who are capable, those who are pursuing a course of action proper to man.”

    You can see how Beck incorporates this mindset into his daily diatribes against the government. The most telling example of this came during the summer when Beck compared the current effort to reform health care to giving reparations to the descendants of slaves. In his standard conspiratorial fare, Beck said that the purpose of health care reform wasn’t to give more Americans access to affordable, quality health care, but to act as a slush fund to reward racial minorities. Although Beck adds a toxic racial element to the equation, his basic framework is straight out of Ayn Rand: the government is using its power to take money away from productive people and to give it to unworthy parasites.
    Although this sort of phony populism is absurd on its face, it has been used effectively for decades to wage a siege war against progressive government policies. The tactics vary, but the common strategy is to persuade the rest of the American people to support legislation that only benefits the very richest.

    Take for example the debate over the inheritance tax, which until 2001 was only paid by the wealthiest two percent of Americans. For years now, rich-guy populists have successfully rebranded it as the “death tax” and have portrayed it as a nationwide scourge that is bankrupting small family farms.

    Sadly, then, rich-guy populism has become a staple of American political discourse. Progressives who design and implement policy can do themselves a favor if they simply anticipate that whatever they propose is going to attacked as violating the rights of the rich, who in the right-wing’s view have become America’s most deeply oppressed minority.


    http://www.alternet.org/politics/143624/glenn_beck_peddles_populism_for_rich_guys
     
  10. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    26,720
    Likes Received:
    3,475
    what you said.....make no sense.
     
  11. Ari

    Ari Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    22
    Absolutely! And he is right, too. Corporatism (a mild fashion of fascism I guess) is what we have now, and we are moving more and more towards it. We do not really have unfettered free market capitalism, we are sort of stuck inbetween in a no man's land I guess, but we are yet to figure out the right balance. There is no need for either extreme, I think.

    Ron Paul is one of the few politicians left who are consistent with their logic and can actually represent and communicate their ideals clearly and without regard to whom is in power. You may disagree with him, but I wholeheartedly agree on his views on Afghanistan, which is a worthless country with little or no effect on the rest of the world. I may not entirely agree with him on health care, but I think I understand the jest of his argument and he does make a few points worth considering. I wish the right in this country (libertarians, conservatives and neo-conservatives) would all speak with such transparency and clear talk. It would be easier to know whom stands for what and we can vote accordingly.
     
  12. DFWRocket

    DFWRocket Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2000
    Messages:
    4,474
    Likes Received:
    2,002
    Wow, you mean someone actually watched the video before posting an opinion on it?? Very nice Ari!
     
  13. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    "Corporatism" is the reason that I would vote for Ron Paul above anyone else running for President. He is the one person who I actually believe would go against the corporations and stand up for the middle class.
     
  14. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    Ron Paul is one of my favorite interviews. When he chastised the Republicans in the debate he won my heart.
     
  15. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    Great article from slate.

    How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon
    The perverse allure of a damaged woman.

    By Johann Hari
    Posted Monday, Nov. 2, 2009, at 7:01 AM ET


     
  16. DrLudicrous

    DrLudicrous Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    3,936
    Likes Received:
    203
    In the OP's defense, that's a direct quote from Ron Paul in the interview.
     
  17. aghast

    aghast Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,329
    Likes Received:
    169
    Except he argues for just about complete deregulation of private industry. Corporations, or "corporatism," would love a Ron Paul presidency. There would exist no checks on their power: no checks on price gouging, no checks on market manipulations, no checks on employee mistreatment.
     
  18. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    If he were the supreme dictator of America, your argument would hold water. He would be checked by Congress, who would not allow him to go as far as he would like, but he would have anough power to actually shrink government for the first time in my life.
     
  19. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,617
    Likes Received:
    6,244
    Ron Paul is probably talks a good game, but I think he would fare the same as obama.
     
  20. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    I think he would get far less done than Obama as a result of fighting with the Congress over the things he wants to do. However, he would axe a number of agencies that need to be axed and would actually reduce the size of government for the first time in my life.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now