Why are Republicans afraid of Ron Paul?

[SniperFire]

So the Libertarian approach to this problem is to minimize the affects of affinity groups by reducing the size, money, and power of the federal government.

How totalitarian of you.

Unless, of course, you are just pumping out empty Libertarian rhetoric which sounds great but which in practice would actually mean nothing.

 

[SniperFire]

Hey Sniperfire, Libertarian types of government can work if you are dealing with easy going, and independent types of people. Also, most humans are of this type. The problem begins when you start including the other types of people such as the self-righteous, the controlling, i.e your basic jerks and assholes.

What you are telling me is that Libertarianism can only work in theory.

Which is my point.

 

[rightwinger]

Ron Paul is not feared because he has no political clout

He has about ten percent of the Republican party and five percent of the country

He has never established political alliances and has no power within Congress. He just makes a nice after dinner speaker.

 

[SniperFire]

For Libertarianism to work in government, it would require forced compliance to a set of VERY rigid principles.


Why? Because HUMAN NATURE, being what it is, would CONSTANTLY be seeking to compromise it.


You simply cannot deny this.

As an actual, real world public management program, you guys would be little different than Pol Pot.
Come over from the dark side and vote Romney.

You mean "rigid principles" like the Constitution?.

Yes, except your Constitution would mandate NEGATIVE rights, such as:

"people cannot vote themselves (insert populist program) because it violates Libertarian purity.'

Again, you simply cannot deny this.

 

[Paulie]

why do paulians think ANYONE is afraid of ron paul?

Because you CLEARLY are. You are afraid of what might become of Israeli relations if, GASP, a man like Ron Paul were president that would push for leaving nations to decide their own fates.

He's the only candidate that wouldn't be Israel's enforcer, and that scares the living shit out of you.

Insert obligatory and predictable anti-semite reply:

 

[ThinkCritically]

Does it solve the problem of human nature? NO.....and no system can or ever will, so criticizing it because "human nature" makes it fallible isn't a very strong argument due to the fact all systems are subject to this "human nature". Basically the "human nature" argument is irrelevant due to the fact all systems of governing will face the same such said "human nature"
?

You are quite wrong. Human Nature is exactly why Libertarianism never works.
If the majority of a people decide they want a welfare program, would a Libertarian government block it? You must. If you don't, you quickly no longer have a Libertarian system.

But restricting and blocking such initiatives by the people would be fascist, would it not?

If a majority of people decide they want a welfare program then it would pass as law under a libertarian government....were is the problem.....

Again i do not understand why you think the government would need to restrict and block such initiatives by the people through fascist means. Where are you coming up with these ideas?

 

[Oddball]

For Libertarianism to work in government, it would require forced compliance to a set of VERY rigid principles.


Why? Because HUMAN NATURE, being what it is, would CONSTANTLY be seeking to compromise it.


You simply cannot deny this.

As an actual, real world public management program, you guys would be little different than Pol Pot.
Come over from the dark side and vote Romney.

You mean "rigid principles" like the Constitution?.

Yes, except your Constitution would mandate NEGATIVE rights, such as:

"people cannot vote themselves (insert populist program) because it violates Libertarian purity.'

Again, you simply cannot deny this.

What's undeniable is that you're a ******* fool.

Why not just go join the Marxist democrats and be done with it?

 

[SniperFire]

why do paulians think ANYONE is afraid of ron paul?

Because you CLEARLY are. You are afraid of what might become of Israeli relations if, GASP, a man like Ron Paul were president that would push for leaving nations to decide their own fates.

He's the only candidate that wouldn't be Israel's enforcer, and that scares the living shit out of you.

Insert obligatory and predictable anti-semite reply:

In a Libertarian system, would the USA be barred from forming foreign alliances?

Or are you just saying alliances can be formed as long as Libertarian-types approve of such alliances?

 

[SniperFire]

You mean "rigid principles" like the Constitution?.

Yes, except your Constitution would mandate NEGATIVE rights, such as:

"people cannot vote themselves (insert populist program) because it violates Libertarian purity.'

Again, you simply cannot deny this.

What's undeniable is that you're a ******* fool.

You mad. LOL

 

[paulitician]

You mean "rigid principles" like the Constitution?.

Yes, except your Constitution would mandate NEGATIVE rights, such as:

"people cannot vote themselves (insert populist program) because it violates Libertarian purity.'

Again, you simply cannot deny this.

What's undeniable is that you're a ******* fool.

Why not just go join the Marxist democrats and be done with it?

The more i read, the more i'm beginning to realize he or she is just an average confused Big Government Neocon. Or just a Socialist/Progressive Democrat posing as a Republican. That is pretty common on Message Boards.

 

[SniperFire]

Does it solve the problem of human nature? NO.....and no system can or ever will, so criticizing it because "human nature" makes it fallible isn't a very strong argument due to the fact all systems are subject to this "human nature". Basically the "human nature" argument is irrelevant due to the fact all systems of governing will face the same such said "human nature"
?

You are quite wrong. Human Nature is exactly why Libertarianism never works.
If the majority of a people decide they want a welfare program, would a Libertarian government block it? You must. If you don't, you quickly no longer have a Libertarian system.

But restricting and blocking such initiatives by the people would be fascist, would it not?

If a majority of people decide they want a welfare program then it would pass as law under a libertarian government....were is the problem.....

Again i do not understand why you think the government would need to restrict and block such initiatives by the people through fascist means. Where are you coming up with these ideas?

So really, you don't view Libertarianism as an actual system of government at all, since the people get to decide on everything - just like they do now.

What is the point short of whimsical feel-goods?

 

[SniperFire]

Yes, except your Constitution would mandate NEGATIVE rights, such as:

"people cannot vote themselves (insert populist program) because it violates Libertarian purity.'

Again, you simply cannot deny this.

What's undeniable is that you're a ******* fool.

Why not just go join the Marxist democrats and be done with it?

The more i read, the more i'm beginning to realize he or she is just an average confused Big Government Neocon. Or just a Socialist/Progressive Democrat posing as a Republican. That is pretty common on Message Boards.

More rhetoric and empty theory.

 

[ThinkCritically]

why do paulians think ANYONE is afraid of ron paul?

Because you CLEARLY are. You are afraid of what might become of Israeli relations if, GASP, a man like Ron Paul were president that would push for leaving nations to decide their own fates.

He's the only candidate that wouldn't be Israel's enforcer, and that scares the living shit out of you.

Insert obligatory and predictable anti-semite reply:

In a Libertarian system, would the USA be barred from forming foreign alliances?

Or are you just saying alliances can be formed as long as Libertarian-types approve of such alliances?

Why would the USA be barred from forming foreign alliances? Really? Fox news and the isolationist propaganda has gotten you good.

 

[SniperFire]

Because you CLEARLY are. You are afraid of what might become of Israeli relations if, GASP, a man like Ron Paul were president that would push for leaving nations to decide their own fates.

He's the only candidate that wouldn't be Israel's enforcer, and that scares the living shit out of you.

Insert obligatory and predictable anti-semite reply:

In a Libertarian system, would the USA be barred from forming foreign alliances?

Or are you just saying alliances can be formed as long as Libertarian-types approve of such alliances?

Why would the USA be barred from forming foreign alliances? Really? Fox news and the isolationist propaganda has gotten you good.

So you actually think the other Libertarian that said Libertarians would leave other nations to decide their own fate is full of shit?

 

[SniperFire]

For 'ThinkCritically', Libertarianism is nothing but good intentions.

 

[paulitician]

In a Libertarian system, would the USA be barred from forming foreign alliances?

Or are you just saying alliances can be formed as long as Libertarian-types approve of such alliances?

Why would the USA be barred from forming foreign alliances? Really? Fox news and the isolationist propaganda has gotten you good.

So you actually think the other Libertarian that said Libertarians would leave other nations to decide their own fate is full of shit?

What's so wrong with leaving other Nations to decide their own fate? Sounds good to me.

 

[SniperFire]

Why would the USA be barred from forming foreign alliances? Really? Fox news and the isolationist propaganda has gotten you good.

So you actually think the other Libertarian that said Libertarians would leave other nations to decide their own fate is full of shit?

What's so wrong with leaving other Nations to decide their own fate? Sounds good to me.

In your Libertarian world, there would be no foreign alliances of any sort.

Is this correct?


Or would you make exception based on your Libertarian preferences?

 

[ThinkCritically]

So really, you don't view Libertarianism as an actual system of government at all, since the people get to decide on everything - just like they do now.

This is the essence of Libertarianism people get to decide on everything at the local level. You don't need some politician with loaded personal agendas in Washington deciding how to run your life or the lives of people living in other countries for that matter.

So yes it would be much like now in that it would still be a democracy, the difference being minimize federal government thus reducing corruption. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

 

[Paulie]

why do paulians think ANYONE is afraid of ron paul?

Because you CLEARLY are. You are afraid of what might become of Israeli relations if, GASP, a man like Ron Paul were president that would push for leaving nations to decide their own fates.

He's the only candidate that wouldn't be Israel's enforcer, and that scares the living shit out of you.

Insert obligatory and predictable anti-semite reply:

In a Libertarian system, would the USA be barred from forming foreign alliances?

Or are you just saying alliances can be formed as long as Libertarian-types approve of such alliances?

Barred? Of course not. There's really nothing in the constitution that forbids the government from forming an alliance. The founders warned of such a thing, but did not place any constitutional restriction on it. It could be justified by the common defense enumerated power, I suppose.

But that doesn't mean we support it as a foreign policy.

Taking sides creates unintended consequences, like creating enemies. We defend the borders and ports of foreign countries more strictly than we defend our own.

 

[rightwinger]

Ron Paul scares me because he wears a hoodie