Ron Paul and Libertarian ideas have been tried failed

misjudging or misinterpreting Paul happens all the time. people will look at a stance that Paul has and crap all over it. The problem is you can't look at any of Paul's stances individually. for example abortion, he's against it. not for religious reasons but because of individual rights of a fetus which he believes are violated. he gets crap for that stance but no one mentions that it is a stance for rights more than abortion. really his abortion stance has nothing to do with abortion itself as crazy as it sounds.

Look at EPA, he wants to kill it. he's not FOR pollution, give me a break. He believes it is a rights issue and that our court system can handle violation of rights. in this case it would be our right to not have anyone polluting our property.

TSA, also wants to kill it. again he's not FOR lack of security. he believes that the responsibility lies with airlines and airports. I've got a home security system as many of you do. It's not subsidized, I have to pay for it. Ultimately my security is my responsibility. do you guys think DHS should watch our neighborhoods? sounds like a police state to me.

I could go on and on and it always goes back to rights. when looking at Paul you need to always hear the argument from a Personal/Property Rights perspective. On almost all issues (if not all) that is the basis of his stance. Whether you agree or disagree that's fine but don't ignore the basis for his opinion which with Paul is extremely important.

 

So if someone breaks into your home you'll make a citizen's arrest and hold them in your basement till you can sue them in court?

 

in Texas we have the right to self defense with deadly force. In some cases this includes private property. so if someone breaks in, i'm shooting them. protect self first ask questions later.

 

That would be all well and good if there were no externalities. It's quite convenient that Mr. Paul refuses to acknowledge climate change.

Q. Who do we sue for the cumulative effect of green house gases being released into the atmosphere resulting in climate change?

A. Well, that stuff's not real, so it doesn't matter.

 

What's the alternative? Call the police, and allow another person to harm you and your family, and your property? I don't think you understand how the system works. Regardless of which option you choose, the crime goes to the court system. A person doesn't have to sue a person who breaks into their house. They could sue them for hardship, damages, etc., but that's not the point. Either the individual or the state brings charges against criminals. The courts apply the law the the particular situation. One party is held liable, and must either face criminal punishment, civil punishment, or both.

 

Originally Posted by jo mama
under the libertarian philosophy of private property rights, individuals, small businesses and cities would be able to sue for damages.
...no matter where you stand, i think we can all agree that we want people held accountable when they harm others - the problem is that our current system is set up to limit accountability and protect large corporations.



As a lawyer I should love libertarianism as one of the pat answers to all problems is that you can sue. No stop lights, meat inspectors, restaurant inspectors etc. Everyone is free to sue. No government; just millions and millions of court employees and lawyers. Cool. I guess the court employees can be private courts and charge huge fees to potential litigants so it would be even cooler.

 

The existence of negative externalities is why I support regulating emissions to public and common property. Industry should be limited in these instances, but I'm not supportive of forcing them to adopt particular technologies, or forcing them to adopt certain methods of production. Society should impose a cost on them for producing negative externalities. I don't think any prudent individual would disagree.

 

Not since the Articles of Confederation were dropped in favor of the Constitution.

Its not that simple at all. Consider that more and more commerce is interstate along with the ease of movement of people and information. Allowing the states to create most of their own regulations would if anything hamper commerce by having to deal with different sets of state laws. Consider that the credit card you use to buy something from a different state online from Amazon is probably issued by a bank in yet another state. So while we are a union of individual states we are one economy, one country and one culture.

 

It seems my points are all too often, too subtle for ideologues. Your perspective would preclude the existence of a publicly funded police force as an option. Much less a publicly funded independent judiciary.

 

Which is exactly why the federal government is empowered to regulate interstate trade. The should be creating legislation that prevents the states from putting up barriers to trade between each other, but that often isn't the case when legislators. For example, Texas shouldn't be able to prevent an insurance company from Louisiana from having clients in Texas.

 

I'm not precluding the fact that we have publicly funded police forces. Either way, charges are filed and the courts determine how to apply the law the particular situation. And I'm saying that we shouldn't have police, either. Just that the police can't always protect.

 

you know you guys come in here and shoot down all of the "smaller federal government" ideas. you give countless examples of why we need big government to help us because we're too stupid to do it ourselves. but yet none of you all acknowledge that they (Washington) almost always get it wrong.

1. no child left behind, failure
2. FEMA/katrina, failure
3. SEC/Enron/Madoff/SOX, failure
4. DHS/privacy issues/cost, failure
5. Fannie/Freddie, failure
6. I could go on and on...

So we can't do it ourselves and we need big daddy Washington to do it for us. What happens when they get it wrong or can't? Then what?

Maybe a new Cabinet Department, DOW. Department of Wrong. At the end of the day, it will probably have the biggest budget and still screw up the fix ups.

 

This is fantastically wrong. Using your priciple of "almost always" - am I safe in presuming that every other post of yours is always wrong and shouldn't be read?

 

again you ignore the failures and dissect a few words. so they get things right, big deal they're supposed to. well guess what, as i said they also get thing horribly wrong. but nothing not a peep about it. only haterade for people coming up with possible alternatives ideas. maybe i'm expecting to much, after all die hard republicans and democrats already have their minds made up before they've even heard the issue. great idea from a democrat, don't bother republicans hate it before they guy even finishes talking and vice versa. it's sickening.

 

No, friend, the problem isn't me "ignor[ing] the failures" - in fact I even rsponded to this post, so consider it a success on your part.

Let's table the generalization sideshow since it's not one you're going to win on and give you a chance - Why don't you explain your "possible alternatives ideas" about how having 50+ state securities regulators (though there technically already are for Blue sky etc, though vastly preempted as compared to pre-1933) is a better idea than a single commission setting laws?

We did kind of try this before, you know....talk about failures...

 

you're completely missing my point. i don't have all of the ideas, no one does. my point is whenever someone with potential political influence comes up with an idea it's immediately blasted by the other side, whoever that may be. that being said, it's not the idea that's important to me as much as having different ideas to debate. especially when there is evidence that that the status quo may not be working. with multiple ideas and healthy debate I am confident the best idea would be selected.

last and most important point. it seems to me a modern day dark ages where there is a lack of intellectual reasoning substituted with vitriolic criticism. we should expect more of ourselves and each other.

 

This....... makes no sense to me. At all.

I mean, basically you're saying "It doesn't matter that my idea is freaking stupid, it's still an idea which means..... well, something".

There were tons of ideas back then on whether capitalism or Stalinism was better, or whether going to the gold standard is a good thing. Today, these debates are dead to anyone of reasonable intelligence. The fact that these debates are dead is not necessarily a bad thing.

Same thing with your idea which seems to be going back to the Articles. We're not an union of states anymore. We haven't been since Appomattox. Why we would go back to being an union is beyond me.

 

first you misinterpreted me, then you insulted me, and finally focused on details after i mentioned my personal concern was not the detail but the approach.

idgaf, i'm out of D&D for awhile. i always feel dirty when i spend time in here.

 

This is classic GOP/conservatism.

Most of your example are programs run on the cheap or designed to fail by folks who hate government and then, surprise they fail.

FEMA/Katrina, discussed at nauseam. Bush put an ideological crony who had run something like a race track or somesuch IIRC in charge. They started defunding it.

SEC, a real classic. They stopped hiring investigators and stopped prosecutions under the old libertarian canard that the fiancial industry could regulate itself.

One of the heroes of libertariansm, Alan Greenspan briefly admitted this error when we had the 2008 economic collapse.

Fannie and Freddie were stocks that were shorted etc. and hardly an example of the Federal Gubmint run wild. If anything to the extent they were private and folks could make millions on them, was the extent to which they were corrupt.

I've got news for conservatives/libertarians it isn't just wanting to get reelected that is the root of all corruption. It often involves--shock the desire to make money or a profit.