If only Ron Paul had a network to make up a false number. They could say he was up by 24 points over each and then the people that watched that network would think voting for obama or romney would be a waste of a vote and everyone would end up voting for paul.

I wonder who people would really want to vote for if the media never told them who was winning or who was better. Imagine a world with an unbiased media? Pretty crazy thoughts here.

4/16/2012 11:48:15 PM

Clearly Fox News is trying to sway people toward Obama.

4/16/2012 11:53:14 PM

margin of error plus or minus 9 percent?

4/17/2012 12:13:26 AM

4

4/17/2012 7:52:47 AM

This just in: survey results without full disclosure of methodology mean jack shit.

4/17/2012 9:31:58 AM

"Ask a Ron Paul supporter what Fractional Reserve Banking is. They'll tell you. Ask a Republican. They won't know. Ask an Obama supporter. They won't care."

4/17/2012 10:21:28 AM

talking with a ron paul supporter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQSOwgWG1c

4/17/2012 10:27:50 AM

Quote :

"talking with a ron paul supporter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQSOwgWG1c"

While this is true and I'm guilty of it, we are forced to focus on Liberty and The Constitution. It's our foundation of argument.

Paulite: 1+1=2
but what if 1+1=3?
Paulite: 1+1=2
but what if elephant fly?
Paulite: 1+1=2

It's obvious that The Constitution is being trampled on and there is no other way to get the message across to people than to beat it in their brains while they talk about defending the governments right to trample The Constitution. Shit, you got people calling Ron Paul a dictator in the other thread. So once again

Paulite: 1+1=2

4/17/2012 11:01:25 AM

Hey, I don't have to mention the Constitution or liberty. Lysander Spoon said it best:

Quote :

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

I just get tired of debunking the same fucking arguments, so I don't. Believe it or not, libertarianism is not a "black and white" ideology. There's plenty of room for nuance. There's plenty of room for ethical questions.

What I will never fucking budge on is that force used against those that have not, themselves, initiated force, is wrong. If you are the aggressor, you are wrong. If you support the aggressor, you are wrong. When you say that people owe you something by virtue of the fact that they exist, and you want what they have, you're an asshole.

4/17/2012 11:10:54 AM

That of course is ignoring the effects of not using force. A criminal may not have initiated force against the police, but surely the "wrong" of the using force to aprehend him is outweighed by the "right" of bringing him to justice, right? (let's pretend for the sake of argument that this is a con artist, not a drug user. This isn't an discussion about whether drug laws are just).

Likewise the "wrong" of making you pay taxes is outweighed by the "right" of not throwing poor people to the wolves. The "wrong" of enforcing workplace regulation is outweighed by the "right" of not having inhumane labor practicies.

4/17/2012 11:25:03 AM

A criminal (at least, in a just system) has initiated force or fraud against someone. Use of force against them in the name of justice is warranted.

Your assertion that the "wrong" of forced wealth extraction is outweighed by the "right" of welfare (which makes up probably 1% of the cost of government) is dubious at best. It implies that I owe something to others by virtue of the fact that we were born in the same country (nationalism). It ignores the unintended consequences of having a government capable of providing these services that you think are necessary. It ignores the millions that have been slaughtered by the U.S. government. It assumes that poor people would be "thrown to the wolves" without the government that we have.

So, your assertion is laden with assumptions, whereas I start from a very basic moral principle. I don't assume that all people would be better off under my ideal system. They might not be.

If you think there are people that need help, then help them. If you're right that democracy works, then there must be a majority of people that are on the same page. You can all go help people. I might even join you.

The necessity of force comes from a darker place, though, which you often neglect to mention. It comes from a thought process that goes something like this:

Quote :

"Well, of course I'll help people. But what about everyone else in society! All of those assholes that will just hoard money and never help anyone! It wouldn't be fair if I spent my time and money helping people, but those other selfish dicks didn't. Therefore, let's use the government to force everyone to help. Bonus: I don't actually have to help people anymore, because the government is doing it. I get to feel good about myself, and everyone gets everything they need, requiring zero effort on my part."

[Edited on April 17, 2012 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

4/17/2012 11:45:49 AM

Quote :

"A criminal (at least, in a just system) has initiated force or fraud against someone. Use of force against them in the name of justice is warranted."

Fine, you didn't specify "or fraud" in your arbitrary rule about right and wrong.

Quote :

"Your assertion that the "wrong" of forced wealth extraction is outweighed by the "right" of welfare (which makes up probably 1% of the cost of government) is dubious at best. It implies that I owe something to others by virtue of the fact that we were born in the same country (nationalism). "

I implied nothing of the sort. I acknowledged that in your strict morality taking money from you is a "wrong." It's your money, you didn't do anything to deserve having it taken away, and yet it is taken.

Quote :

" It ignores the unintended consequences of having a government capable of providing these services that you think are necessary. It ignores the millions that have been slaughtered by the U.S. government. It assumes that poor people would be "thrown to the wolves" without the government that we have. "

Yes, because I claimed that your money is 100% used for just means.

4/17/2012 12:00:24 PM

Quote :

"Yes, because I claimed that your money is 100% used for just means "

What's that suppose to mean?

4/17/2012 12:15:10 PM

That the net result of having a government is positive. The net result of being forced to pay taxes is positive. The "wrong" of being forced to pay taxes is trivial in comparison. It is wrong only in a strictly dogmatic "all aggressive force is wrong" kind of way.

4/17/2012 12:48:01 PM

So you're saying that the net result of having a government is positive all of the time.
and you're saying that net result of paying taxes is positive all of the time.


is this correct?

4/17/2012 1:05:22 PM

Nope. There are theoretical governments which are not netly positive for the world. I'm claming that the current US government (and essentially all modern "Western" governments) are not members of this theoretical group.

4/17/2012 1:14:12 PM

Who needs the media to make up numbers when you can just make them up yourself then accuse anyone who disagrees of being a sheeple slave to the MSM?

4/17/2012 1:53:50 PM

We should build a self-destruct function into humans.

As soon as people start to form something that resembles government that goes beyond some sort of theoretical ordered anarchy, they all blow up.

4/17/2012 3:30:05 PM

or we could start jumping and then go "ooooooooooooo" and get louder like "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH" and then switch to "PACK! PACK! PACK! PACK! OOOOOO PACK! PACK! PACK! PACK! OOOOOOOOOOOO! POWER PACK! POWER PACK! BACK THE PACK!" and then play a loud rockin rap song or somethin. i think it would get things crazy.

4/17/2012 3:55:07 PM

Quote :

"That the net result of having a government is positive. The net result of being forced to pay taxes is positive."

Quote :

"So you're saying that the net result of having a government is positive all of the time. and you're saying that net result of paying taxes is positive all of the time. is this correct? "

Quote :

"nope"

You can't be on both sides of the issue. Tell us the line in the equation where they step into negative territory.

4/17/2012 6:44:09 PM

I'll revise my original statement:

"That the net result of having a our government is positive. The net result of being forced to pay taxes for our government is positive."

4/17/2012 7:37:18 PM

Yes, I'm sure that you believe that our government is a "net positive". The people of Latin America, South America, the Middle East, and thousands of others that have been shit on mercilessly by U.S. foreign policy would like a word with you. I'm guessing that the hundred of thousands or millions of innocent people in jail due to domestic policy would also take issue with your statement.

It's easy to talk about how great the U.S. government is when you're living the high life in suburbia. Yeah, your rights are protected...sometimes. Others aren't so lucky.

4/17/2012 8:47:44 PM

Fair enough.

Please bear with me while I revise my question:


Where is/What determines the line that our government must cross in order to net negative territory?

4/17/2012 8:49:01 PM

9/11

4/17/2012 10:44:42 PM

Quote :

"Yes, I'm sure that you believe that our government is a "net positive". The people of Latin America, South America, the Middle East, and thousands of others that have been shit on mercilessly by U.S. foreign policy would like a word with you. I'm guessing that the hundred of thousands or millions of innocent people in jail due to domestic policy would also take issue with your statement. It's easy to talk about how great the U.S. government is when you're living the high life in suburbia. Yeah, your rights are protected...sometimes. Others aren't so lucky."

And the millions of others that have been saved and assisted by US foreign policy would like to have a word with you. Yes the US government has done good and bad. You think they would have rather we stayed out of world war 1 or 2? You think they would rather not receive our foreign aid (actually I know you think they wouldn't). You think the countries we do align with would rather not have us?

Look, we're at a fundamental disagreement here. You think all the roads, schools, hospitals, science, research, medicine, health, and everything else would have popped up independently through the good will of men without the government and I do not.

Quote :

"Where is/What determines the line that our government must cross in order to net negative territory?"

When it's providing more a detriment to the world than a benefit by being there. Clearly this will be impossible to quantify exactly.

4/17/2012 11:36:08 PM

Quote :

"When it's providing more a detriment to the world than a benefit by being there. Clearly this will be impossible to quantify exactly."

Let me get this straight. You know the net result of the government is positive, but you have no idea what the equation is you're using to base this information on?



My line in the sand is the Constitution. When a single line in the constitution was compromised, that's when I knew the government crossed the line. Simple.

So, yes, it is possible to quantify, especially if it's based on your personal opinion alone.

If you know what's good and you know whats bad, you should know what separates the two.

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 12:10 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2012 12:09:23 AM

The benefits and detriments are fairly clear but there are ambiguities. That's all I meant by "impossible to quantify".

The Constitution is a product of the government and clearly not a perfect one. It had to be changed because it was racist and sexist. I have no reason to think that it perfectly conforms to the ideal form of government. I do happen to think that it is the best in current existence, but I don't think every government action that isn't explicitly spelled out within it is a "compromise". Nor do I think our society would be ideal if we were to assume so.

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 12:54 AM. Reason : .]

4/18/2012 12:45:54 AM

Quote :

"My line in the sand is the Constitution. When a single line in the constitution was compromised, that's when I knew the government crossed the line. Simple. So, yes, it is possible to quantify, especially if it's based on your personal opinion alone. If you know what's good and you know whats bad, you should know what separates the two."

Why do you think that you have such a solid grasp on the Constitution when even the Supreme Court Justices (the most educated and qualified legal minds in the country) disagree on almost every single issue? Are your opinions on the Constitution more insightful than theirs? Why do you think the Constitution is some perfect document with no flaws? The original Constitution is incredibly flawed. The men who wrote it 250 years ago even realized this. They were the ones who crafted the Bill of Rights for fuck's sake. Why do you have such disregard for so many laws but hold up one piece of legislation so highly? It's a piece of paper written by a bunch of rich, old, white, slave-owning men over two centuries ago. As far as crafting the framework for a workable government, it has done a very good job. But there is absolutely no way they could have had the foresight to imagine all of the issues facing the country in contemporary times. You begin all of your arguments from an immovable position and then get upset when other people don't move to your position.

Do you believe that government has the power to create positive social bonds and benefits? Local government? State? Federal? Does it have the right? If not, why? If there were a theoretical federal law that could be implemented that would benefit all citizens but it were "unconstitutional," would you support it? Is a government a reflection of the people it governs? If not, where do laws come from? I do not understand your philosophy at all and answering these questions will help me.

4/18/2012 9:02:13 AM

Quote :

"Why do you think that you have such a solid grasp on the Constitution when even the Supreme Court Justices (the most educated and qualified legal minds in the country) disagree on almost every single issue?"

Rampant greed, corruption, agendas, lobbyists, and foul play is altering the outcomes. Court Justices are using their emotions and players behind the scenes have been documented with threatening senators, congressman, and judges that they'd release career ending information unless they get what they want. I've talked people that've gone to washington, and it's a dirty place. This is why congress has a 9% approval rating and NOT listening to the people or the constitution.

4/18/2012 10:50:31 AM

Quote :

"players behind the scenes have been documented with threatening senators, congressman, and judges that they'd release career ending information unless they get what they want."

source?

i'd love to read this.

4/18/2012 10:52:08 AM

Asking for a source is like asking for the tunnel schematics for Al Capone.

4/18/2012 10:53:17 AM

Quote :

"And the millions of others that have been saved and assisted by US foreign policy would like to have a word with you. Yes the US government has done good and bad. You think they would have rather we stayed out of world war 1 or 2? You think they would rather not receive our foreign aid (actually I know you think they wouldn't). You think the countries we do align with would rather not have us?"

You have a very U.S.-centric worldview. Of course you're going to believe that the United States has done more good than bad. That's a narrative that is spread relentlessly, because if it were not, the government could not maintain legitimacy.

The U.S. may have done some good, no doubt. Does that outweigh the damage it has done? Depends on who you ask. If you ask an American, they'll probably tell you the U.S. is a force for good. Ask someone that has felt the crushing burden of U.S. hegimony, and they'll tell a different story.

Do you not understand what nationalism is? Do you recognize it in yourself?

Quote :

"Look, we're at a fundamental disagreement here. You think all the roads, schools, hospitals, science, research, medicine, health, and everything else would have popped up independently through the good will of men without the government and I do not. "

I very much doubt that any of that has been (or will be) developed purely through the good will of men. That's why I advocate capitalism. It's not as if I haven't heard this argument before. "Without the force of government, there'd be no roads! We'd all be sitting in our huts, wishing there was some way to get from here to there!"

You have this idea that people just won't collaborate or do anything productive unless the government (which is made up other people that may or may not have their interests at heart) is telling them they have to. It's a very pessimistic view of society, but it is widely held.

[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ]

4/18/2012 11:39:41 AM

Quote :

"You have a very U.S.-centric worldview. Of course you're going to believe that the United States has done more good than bad. That's a narrative that is spread relentlessly, because if it were not, the government could not maintain legitimacy. The U.S. may have done some good, no doubt. Does that outweigh the damage it has done? Depends on who you ask. If you ask an American, they'll probably tell you the U.S. is a force for good. Ask someone that has felt the crushing burden of U.S. hegimony, and they'll tell a different story. Do you not understand what nationalism is? Do you recognize it in yourself? "

I take minor exception to this. I think an objective view of the total impact of the US goverment on both foreign and domestic populations would come back net positive. Not because of some nationalism or that I don't know about the foreign policies that result in people hating us to the point of flying airplanes into our buildings. Of course the families of innocent victims of our military actions would claim otherwise. I'm claiming that there are many more positively affected to a much greater degree in the history of our country.

Quote :

"I very much doubt that any of that has been (or will be) developed purely through the good will of men. That's why I advocate capitalism. It's not as if I haven't heard this argument before. "Without the force of government, there'd be no roads! We'd all be sitting in our huts, wishing there was some way to get from here to there!" You have this idea that people just won't collaborate or do anything productive unless the government (which is made up other people that may or may not have their interests at heart) is telling them they have to. It's a very pessimistic view of society, but it is widely held."

A) I didn't say none of the infrastructure would exist. I asked if you thought all of it would exist. I'm assuming here, but I'm betting you'd expect much less of it would exist because we're artificially allowing too many children to be born and too many unproductive people to flourish.

B)I don't think people won't collaborate or not do anything sans government. But maybe thousands of years of anarchy has been good enough to convince me that order is preferrable to chaos. Even this country, pre-Civil War and pre-expansion of the Federal government serves as a good example of the alternative.

4/18/2012 1:09:46 PM

Quote :

"Asking for a source is like asking for the tunnel schematics for Al Capone."

Hearsay? Blog posts? Forum posts? You have nothing fun I can read?

You know, when you can't provide one source, you might understand that people might be a little skeptical of your claims. on other things. I'm sure there's corruption, but I'd like sources. You know, so we can prove such a thing and punish perps. But if you're just gonna say "OK YOU JUST GONNA HAVE TO TRUST ME HERE," you might be seeing why people might not be able to hop on with a campaign that claims a grand conspiracy against the republic.

4/18/2012 1:53:20 PM

Quote :

" That's why I advocate capitalism. It's not as if I haven't heard this argument before. "Without the force of government, there'd be no roads! We'd all be sitting in our huts, wishing there was some way to get from here to there!" You have this idea that people just won't collaborate or do anything productive unless the government (which is made up other people that may or may not have their interests at heart) is telling them they have to. It's a very pessimistic view of society, but it is widely held."

We can't trust the government so lets trust a large, multinational company to make our decisions!

Surely the goal of capitalism is to do good around the world.

4/18/2012 5:19:39 PM

Quote :

"You have this idea that people just won't collaborate or do anything productive unless the government (which is made up other people that may or may not have their interests at heart) is telling them they have to. It's a very pessimistic view of society, but it is widely held.""

Lol

You have just described government. You're saying that without government people would organize to get things done... Which is a government. How long do you think it would take before (ideally...) people started voting on things and levying taxes or tolls?

4/18/2012 5:26:35 PM

Quote :

"A) I didn't say none of the infrastructure would exist. I asked if you thought all of it would exist. I'm assuming here, but I'm betting you'd expect much less of it would exist because we're artificially allowing too many children to be born and too many unproductive people to flourish."

Who knows what would exist. If we hadn't been securing natural resources in the Middle East since the 1950s and earlier, Gas might be 10 or 15 dollars a gallon, forcing consumers and manufacturers to invest in cheaper energy. Market solutions can take many different forms.

Quote :

"I don't think people won't collaborate or not do anything sans government. But maybe thousands of years of anarchy has been good enough to convince me that order is preferrable to chaos. Even this country, pre-Civil War and pre-expansion of the Federal government serves as a good example of the alternative."

When are these thousands of years of anarchy you're talking about? You mean before recorded history?

Government is what we've had. They've gotten better in some respects. That's no reason to believe that having government manipulate very important aspects of society is the best or only solution.

Quote :

"We can't trust the government so lets trust a large, multinational company to make our decisions! Surely the goal of capitalism is to do good around the world."

MNCs already have tremendous power because they can buy government guns to do their bidding. Maybe centralization of power isn't helping.

Quote :

"You have just described government. You're saying that without government people would organize to get things done... Which is a government. How long do you think it would take before (ideally...) people started voting on things and levying taxes or tolls?"

No, "organizing to get things done" is not "a government". That's...people working together. No guns are required to work together.

4/18/2012 11:36:09 PM

Without a government and with capitalism, government would essentially be a large, tyrannical company that has no care for what the people think. At least the government pretends to be/ is allegedly ran by the people. This company would have much more power than the government has today as there would be nothing to slow it down, regulate it or break it apart.

Capitalism without government= dictatorship.

4/18/2012 11:44:12 PM

Quote :

"No, "organizing to get things done" is not "a government". That's...people working together. No guns are required to work together."

lol

right...

You seem to be suggesting that gov. is not natural which is just a concept.



[Edited on April 18, 2012 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2012 11:53:51 PM

I'd describe very little of what humans do as natural.

4/19/2012 12:32:16 AM

What about pooping?

4/19/2012 3:58:40 AM

Everybody poops.

4/19/2012 5:59:34 AM

and if they dont theyre an android

4/19/2012 6:21:06 AM

Quote :

"It had to be changed because it was racist and sexist."

Source? I don't recall the Constitution saying "black people suck" or "women can't vote." Some people always try to say that that shit is in there, but it never was. The closest you have is the 3/5ths counting of slaves, but even that doesn't reference skin color.

4/19/2012 10:24:01 PM

Yeah, anyone who says that is clearly not taking into account the culture of the era. If you look at it from a contemporary point of view, then yes, it is racist and sexist. But back in the 1780s this was a pretty progressive document.

4/19/2012 10:36:47 PM

Quote :

"I'd describe very little of what humans do as natural."

everything humans do is natural

4/20/2012 12:18:57 AM

^lol, screentest's using the food manufacturer's definition of natural.


But we all know that he's talking about things like nuclear bombs and plastics that aren't naturally occurring without humans.

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2012 12:35:14 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, anyone who says that is clearly not taking into account the culture of the era. If you look at it from a contemporary point of view, then yes, it is racist and sexist. But back in the 1780s this was a pretty progressive document."

Are you suggesting that racism and sexism are OK if the culture allows for it?

Quote :

"Source? I don't recall the Constitution saying "black people suck" or "women can't vote." Some people always try to say that that shit is in there, but it never was. The closest you have is the 3/5ths counting of slaves, but even that doesn't reference skin color. "

It allowed white men to restrict the rights of black people and women. It doesn't have to explicitly say "fuck black people and women" to be racist or sexist. A law that says "men get more money that women" is sexist. Why the fuck am I even talking to you?

Quote :

"^lol, screentest's using the food manufacturer's definition of natural. But we all know that he's talking about things like nuclear bombs and plastics that aren't naturally occurring without humans. "

Yay, semantics! The best kind of arguments!

[Edited on April 20, 2012 at 1:09 AM. Reason : clarification]

4/20/2012 1:08:57 AM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that racism and sexism are OK if the culture allows for it?"

No, I'm saying that someone who is criticizing lawmakers of the late 18th century in the United States for failing to include women and blacks in the world's first modern democratic government is either incredibly naive or very stupid. Relatively speaking, the documents created during the founding of the nation were very progressive. Nowhere in the western world were these groups included in the political system. The founding of the USA was already revolutionary because it expanded civil rights to a larger group of people than any government before. Viewed from a contemporary perspective, yes these were horrible atrocities to basic human rights.

All I'm trying to say is that something that is incredibly important to you might mean dog shit to other cultures. Fortunately, we live in a culture where civil rights are generally well-protected and revered. The people from that time or place have a completely different worldview than you do and attempting to raise your personal morals above theirs without understanding the context of their existence is ignorant and futile.

4/20/2012 3:56:17 AM

And I'm saying some things are right and wrong culture-independent. The Constitution got it wrong to begin with but at least had enough foresight to allow changes.

4/20/2012 8:42:28 AM