Stormfront Supports Ron Paul

[LostAngeles]

I agree. But I don't think it has to be that way.

Government should only exist to protect individuals from fraud, coercion, or force. Therefore, the only legitimate purpose of government is to maintain a military, police force, and law courts. Whenever one individual or collective attempts to initiate violence on another, government must act to protect the individual.


In a libertarian society it would be a moot point. Children are under the care of their guardians until they are adults. They cannot make rational decisions on things like alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. Nor can they drive a car or vote. However, the libertarian party strongly supports children's rights and opposes forcing beliefs on them. So, while they may be prohibited from doing certain things, they will never be forced to do things against their will.


By encouraging rational thinking and individual responsibility. One of life's greatest motivators is having to experience the consequences of our actions. Peer pressure is a greater problem in collectivist or tribal societies where conformity is expected and individualism eschewed.


A leader's sole job should be to see to it that the individual is given the maximum freedom. As such, racism cannot play a role in government. Further, we shouldn't use the term "subjects" and expect leaders to "treat them well". That's a dangerous thought pattern to get into. If we see ourselves as subjects to "them" (whomever they may be), we've already lost our liberty.

I used those terms because I couldn't think of any better one's at the time I wrote it (that time being running late for class).

Thanks for the fair and honest response to my questions. To me, it's rather idealist but I appreciate that.

Thanks again.

 

[JoeEllison]

As I've noted before in this thread, government and society are NOT the same thing, and I'm certainly not against "society" in any sense.

I could name dozens of things about society that I love right now, from television to music to 24-hour ATMs to the pizza place down the road that I can't get enough of. Hell, I enjoy posting on the JREF forum. I would absolutely hate to remove myself from society. It's certainly not my "best bet."

Plenty of people have, like you, asked something along the lines of "Why don't you just go to a desert island by yourself? Wouldn't that be the best government for you?" This argument is simply ridiculous. The vast majority of my quality of life is determined by factors that have little or nothing to do with government- through market interactions. I haven't interacted with government in any direct way today, but I have gained enormously from society- from the restaurants I went to to the job I worked at to the classes I attended to the people I interacted with (including you guys).

Government is not the same thing as society. The idea that America, or any country, can be referred to collectively by referring to its government is just silly.

Wow, you interacted with us without using the Internet (developed by the government). You drove on roads that you paid for yourself? All those traffic lights and stop signs happened on their own then? The restaurant's cleanliness not regulated by the government? Food quality enforced by the "free market", and not the evil government inspectors?

 

[ZenFountain]

Time for me to play the libertarian one liner

Wow, you interacted with us without using the Internet (developed by the government).

Who's to say the free market would have never developed an internet?

You drove on roads that you paid for yourself?

If people want a road they should get together and build one, not make it someone elses responsibility. With the government building roads I can't build a competing road.

All those traffic lights and stop signs happened on their own then?

So basically you think the government knows what's best for you?

The restaurant's cleanliness not regulated by the government?

The free market should decide what is clean and safe, not the government.

Food quality enforced by the "free market", and not the evil government inspectors?

Evidence that food inspection has made food safer?

...wow that was so difficult, I almost had to think.

 

[GreNME]

Actually, gtc covered my concerns with Paul and racism. Not so much concerned that Mr. Paul is a racist, but that his preferred political leanings allow for inequities and, yes, racism.

A few other quibbles:

That southern racists solidly supported Democrats for a hundred years doesn't seem to phase anyone...

Yep... right until a Democratic administration began furthering civil rights, and then all those southern racists switched over to the Republican Party.

----

I'll use an example that survive today--the Amish. They don't pay many of the same taxes we do, such as social security, etc, and yet the help their own. To the libertarian, this is very acceptable; perhaps closer to ideal than how the government works. I am not promoting the Amish beliefs or lifestyle or saying they live in a libertarian utopia, of course, but if I didn't say so you'd come out and say that I advocate agrarian lifestyles since you're, well, to be frank, very dishonest.

You obviously don't know the Amish too well. They are regularly scrutinized for cruelty to animals and dishonest breeding / selling of livestock. They don't deal fairly with the 'English' (non-Amish) and get away with it. Oh, and they don't particularly tend to like people who are born with higher levels of melanin than they were.

Are you saying the Amish are irresponsible?

Selfish and self-important is a better description.

Childish?

In a lot of ways, yes. I'm not talking about the lack of technology, either.

That they oppose society?

Do you understand what it means to be Amish? One of their basic precepts is that society is full of sinners and that they are to live separate from it. That's pretty 'opposed' to it if you ask me.

That they're selfish?

Definitely (if you're not Amish).

I should also note that your taxes did not pay for Amish schools

I should note that Amish schools produce people who only know elementary math, mostly biblical history, and a sub-par reading level. Children with an Amish education are not well-equipped to succeed outside of-- that's right-- Amish society.

The Amish, while they have their own close-knit society, do not shelter themselves off completely from the rest of society

Not completely, but mostly they do. They would if they could, if their past history of doing so means anything.

they do not avoid non-Amish restaurants, businesses, or people.

Whenever they are able, yes they absolutely do.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with them existing and I used to like a good sho-fly pie when passing through Amish country, and even met some individuals I thought were courteous and likable and friendly. However, as a society they are pretty clear about their desire to have as little to do with the outside world as possible, have a policy of disregarding what is considered today to be cruel treatment to animals or ethical business practice, and would like to keep things that way. They even have teenagers spend a period of time in the 'outside world' before they commit fully to the Amish way of life specifically because they only want people who are fully committed in their society (this process also keeps them from fitting the criteria of a cult). Make no mistake, though: they don't deal with us 'English' because they like us, they do it because they have no choice in the matter.

You might want to rethink your analogy (but I doubt you will).

----

Debateable? Yeah, and since you're a newbie ... we had the debate. Socalized medicine won.

And yet funnily enough socialised medicine is much more efficient.

Ah, so you didn't base what you think on any actual facts.

Socialized medicine is cheaper, more efficient, and less bureaucratic. Besides, y'know, preventing sick people from dying and stuff like that.

Can you point me to some of these threads? I'm genuinely curious for edification purposes.

----

Who's to say the free market would have never developed an internet?

Have you heard about the debate over net neutrality? Yeah, imagine that on a scale the size of the internet. Phrases like 'the internets' would literally be true, and that's if enough companies were able to work together to build the infrastructure to begin with.

If people want a road they should get together and build one, not make it someone elses responsibility. With the government building roads I can't build a competing road.

And you also don't have to bear the burden of responsibility if one of your roads collapses going over a river or riverbed, injuring or killing people. Not to mention the constant maintenance costs. Your road couldn't be free to drive on for anyone, like most roads today.

So basically you think the government knows what's best for you?

Nope, that's why (in theory) we vote people in who are supposed to be able to speak for their constituents in government to provide what they ask for.

The free market should decide what is clean and safe, not the government.

Because that's working out so well in places like China and India?

Evidence that food inspection has made food safer?

Longer life spans, for one. Actually, I can't think of a better one than that. the rest seem kind of anti-climactic.

 

[OMGturt1es]

I suppose his racist comments aren't relevant?

i was responding specifically to this thread, wherein posters seemed dangerously close to treating the racists' support of ron paul as evidence that ron paul is racist. i was neither arguing that ron paul is or is not racist.

 

[JoeEllison]

Time for me to play the libertarian one liner



Who's to say the free market would have never developed an internet?



If people want a road they should get together and build one, not make it someone elses responsibility. With the government building roads I can't build a competing road.



So basically you think the government knows what's best for you?



The free market should decide what is clean and safe, not the government.



Evidence that food inspection has made food safer?

...wow that was so difficult, I almost had to think.

You goof!

 

[Dr Adequate]

Can you point me to some of these threads? I'm genuinely curious for edification purposes.

I think that this is the latest, appropriately enough.

Savings from socialized medicine include:

(1) No profits.

(2) No advertising costs.

(3) Economies of scale.

(4) Less bureaucracy.

(5) Earlier treatment/prevention.

(6) Fewer unnecessary procedures.

Plus more people get the healthcare they need, which is obviously good in itself; and should benefit the economy 'cos of fewer man-hours lost to sick-leave --- an indirect saving.

Economically, morally, and medically, socialized medicine is a win-win solution. This is why every nation that has it likes it.

 

[Kerberos]

I think that this is the latest, appropriately enough.

Savings from socialized medicine include:

(1) No profits.

your number one is incorrect. There is no saving from not needing profit - that is a misunderstanding of economics. If the government didn't need to use money for healthcare they could inverts them and get a profit. The lost profit (called an opportunity cost) hurts the taxpayer just as much as having to pay the profit for a private healthcare provider. Of cause socialized medicine is still cheaper than the US system, but not because the government doesn't need a profit.

 

[Dr Adequate]

your number one is incorrect. There is no saving from not needing profit - that is a misunderstanding of economics. If the government didn't need to use money for healthcare they could inverts them and get a profit. The lost profit (called an opportunity cost) hurts the taxpayer just as much as having to pay the profit for a private healthcare provider. Of cause socialized medicine is still cheaper than the US system, but not because the government doesn't need a profit.

* mind boggles gently *

If your provider of health care is not making a profit out of it, that makes health care cheaper.

I'd draw you a diagram, only I can't think of one simple enough.

 

[Kerberos]

* mind boggles gently *

If your provider of health care is not making a profit out of it, that makes health care cheaper.

I'd draw you a diagram, only I can't think of one simple enough.

*Sight* I'll use small word ok?

As an example I'll building a hospital rather than running one since it's simpler and you seem to have problems with complex concepts.

Possibility 1: You pay 10 million in taxes to build a hospital. It's operational one year later.

Possibility 2: Someone else uses 10 million dollars to build a hospital. It is operational one year later. Because he's an evil capitalist who need to make a profit he demands 11 million for the hospital. The government now needs to raise 11 million in taxes of cause. However the population has had the 10 million a years longer, and in that year they could have invested those money making a profit themselves (in hospital building for example). That means that the 10 million from last year is now 11 million. The one million lost by paying a year earlier is called an opportunity cost (or is that to big a word for you?). That means that paying 10 million now is equivalent to paying 11 million a year later. Assuming 10% interest of cause, but even the most rudimentary (damn, another big word) math skills should help you realize that the math works out exactly the same with any other interest rate.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

*Sight* I'll use small word ok?

As an example I'll building a hospital rather than running one since it's simpler and you seem to have problems with complex concepts.

Possibility 1: You pay 10 million in taxes to build a hospital. It's operational one year later.

Possibility 2: Someone else uses 10 million dollars to build a hospital. It is operational one year later. Because he's an evil capitalist who need to make a profit he demands 11 million for the hospital. The government now needs to raise 11 million in taxes of cause. However the population has had the 10 million a years longer, and in that year they could have invested those money making a profit themselves (in hospital building for example). That means that the 10 million from last year is now 11 million. The one million lost by paying a year earlier is called an opportunity cost (or is that to big a word for you?). That means that paying 10 million now is equivalent to paying 11 million a year later. Assuming 10% interest of cause, but even the most rudimentary (damn, another big word) math skills should help you realize that the math works out exactly the same with any other interest rate.

No, what Dr. A is getting at is that in a socialized medical care system, all monies that go into the system go towards medical care, including peripheral expenses such as waste disposal and filing. In a privatized system, someone skims out profits, meaning that a portion of the monies that enter the system are lost.

 

[Kerberos]

No, what Dr. A is getting at is that in a socialized medical care system, all monies that go into the system go towards medical care, including peripheral expenses such as waste disposal and filing. In a privatized system, someone skims out profits, meaning that a portion of the monies that enter the system are lost.

I know what he means, but he's wrong. Profit is basically return on investment. If the hospital is private then a private actor make the investment and gets the profit.

That means that the government can use the money it would otherwise have had to invest in healthcare to invest in something else, which earn the government (or population) a return on investment, which it can use to pay the hospital owners return on investment.

If the government had build the hospital itself it would have foregone the possibility of investing the money somewhere else, which entails an economic loss equivalent to paying a private actor a return on his investment. Profits do not reduce economic efficiency under normal circumstances.

 

[GreNME]

I think that this is the latest, appropriately enough.

Savings from socialized medicine include:

(1) No profits.

(2) No advertising costs.

(3) Economies of scale.

(4) Less bureaucracy.

(5) Earlier treatment/prevention.

(6) Fewer unnecessary procedures.

Plus more people get the healthcare they need, which is obviously good in itself; and should benefit the economy 'cos of fewer man-hours lost to sick-leave --- an indirect saving.

Economically, morally, and medically, socialized medicine is a win-win solution. This is why every nation that has it likes it.

Oh, you don't have to give me any convincing arguments on it. I mostly wanted to see what other people were saying.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I know what he means, but he's wrong. Profit is basically return on investment. If the hospital is private then a private actor make the investment and gets the profit.

That means that the government can use the money it would otherwise have had to invest in healthcare to invest in something else, which earn the government (or population) a return on investment, which it can use to pay the hospital owners return on investment.

If the government had build the hospital itself it would have foregone the possibility of investing the money somewhere else, which entails an economic loss equivalent to paying a private actor a return on his investment. Profits do not reduce economic efficiency under normal circumstances.

No. The profits are a loss to the system. Profits paid to shareholders or owners consist of money taken away from providing the service.

Of course the hosptial can make investments and utilize the profits thereof. Don't be disengenous, socialized medical care does not require avoiding all types of investment, so your point is DOA. The difference between socialized medical care and privatized medical care is that in the later, money leaves the system to line the pockets of people above and beyond the costs of providing the service.

 

[Kerberos]

The snide assholishness aside, you seem to be suffering from the "but we've always done it that way!" paradigm.

There are two things wrong with that statement. First it's simply not true. I explained exactly why it wouldn't work, which you ignored. Presumably because you have no answer. Secondly the fact that something is tried and tested and works (which Libertarian protestation to the contrary notwithstanding it does) that is a good reason to prefer it to something which some highly non-standarde conomic theory predicts would work

Right now, many communities have "adopt a road" projects where private groups fund portions of highway repairs etc. Why? Because tax money is not enough! It is clear that the government cannot maintain these projects; it's time they move over and let the experts handle it.

Because the fact that someone somewhere made some contribution to maintaining a road conclusively proves private roads are superior?

Search for a pdf document entitled: "Free Market Transportation: Denationalizing the Roads". I can't post a link, I haven't made enough posts.

You know normal net etiquette requires that you summarize a link rather than just posting it right? (or not posting it, as the case may be).

Anyways I had some time to waste so I actually did read it. I'm not going to give a point-by point refutation of a 30 page document, but sufficient to say I could feel my brain cells dying while reading it.

On the more amusing end, he apparently doesn't feel building a highway bridge over a persons property represents an intrusion on their property rights. Nor presumably does he consider it a technical challenge to build a bridge over a piece of ground without actually moving machines over that ground.

In the more bizarre department he considers the fact that roads tend towards monopoly due to being "indivisible" comparable to the fact that a hammer doesn't work if you chop it in half. The mind positively boggles!

Now if you want to actually address the points I made in the previous post rather than snipping and ignoring them you should feel free. You can even use argument from you highly entertaining PDF if you want and I'll explain exactly why and where it's nonsense.

 

[Kerberos]

Hmm:

From Wikipedia entry on (not even kidding) "Private Roads":


One company that provides such roads:
http://www.privateroads.co.uk/

Most are local roads that are paid for by homeowner's associations. Right, that must be why I've been hearing about all those British people that have to give up 50% of their income to walk outside!

indeed. However shall I respond to this devastating counterargument *swoons*. How is it possible that the homeowners association don't charge the homeowners an exorbitant rate for using the glorified driveway *puzzled*. That question does somewhat answer itself doesn't it?

Well actually only somewhat, since they could still use their control of the glorified driveway to drive out a homeowner who annoyed them. So why don't they? I'm going to make a wild guess and say they're not allowed to. You do know I trust, that homeowners associations are often government mandated and regulated organisations right? Shanek used to rant against them IIRC.

In any case didn't I specifically ask for something other than a glorified driveway? I distinctly recall that.

As for private highways (from the wikipedia entry on, yes, private highways):

Examples from the article:

Canada:

407 ETR.

The 108km Highway 407 ETR through the Greater Toronto Area is a privately owned freeway with the unique characteristic of all tolls being handled through electronic toll collection.

A bit better, but not exactly a road net. Though actually I'll concede that private or at least semi-private highways aren't always unfeasible. Bridges can work too.

Italy:

Quote:
3,120 kilometers of Italy's highways (comprising 56% of the country's toll roads) are controlled by Autostrade Concessioni e Costruzioni Autostrade. According to Forbes, "Autostrade was an early Electronic Age entry, computerizing to its highway system in 1988"[5].

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. That might actually qualify as a, if not a complete road net then at least a highway net. All build without using eminent domain I trust? Or not.... Speaking of government intrusion, how much do you want to bet that these highways where build on some government contract putting all sorts of regulation on how the company can use it's "property" and what prices it can charge?

Now would you like to take an actual shot at explaining how you avoid the road companies abusing the monopoly power? Preferably something more impressive than the rather under whelming example of how the probably government regulated homeowners association don't screw themselves over.

 

[GreNME]

I know what he means, but he's wrong. Profit is basically return on investment. If the hospital is private then a private actor make the investment and gets the profit.

That means that the government can use the money it would otherwise have had to invest in healthcare to invest in something else, which earn the government (or population) a return on investment, which it can use to pay the hospital owners return on investment.

If the government had build the hospital itself it would have foregone the possibility of investing the money somewhere else, which entails an economic loss equivalent to paying a private actor a return on his investment. Profits do not reduce economic efficiency under normal circumstances.

Just guessing: Libertarian? Or heavy fiscal conservative? I'm curious mostly because of a statement I made in an earlier thread that was disagreed with, and I think you're illustrating the point I attempted to make.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, what Dr. A is getting at is that in a socialized medical care system, all monies that go into the system go towards medical care, including peripheral expenses such as waste disposal and filing. In a privatized system, someone skims out profits, meaning that a portion of the monies that enter the system are lost.

While in the best case what you and Dr A are positing would be the case, you are taking on the imbedded assumption that the government will be as efficient as an enterprise that has the need to be efficient in order to turn a profit. It may or may not pan out that way when that disciipline is not part of the environment, in terms of getting the best output for the capital input. That outcome depends on how disciplined and transparent the oversight and administration of the system is.

DR

 

[GreNME]

While in the best case what you and Dr A are positing would be the case, you are taking on the imbedded assumption that the government will be as efficient as an enterprise that has the need to be efficient in order to turn a profit. It may or may not pan out that way when that disciipline is not part of the environment, in terms of getting the best output for the capital input. That outcome depends on how disciplined and transparent the oversight and administration of the system is.

DR

They're at least as efficient as private businesses are, in my experience. Of course, that isn't necessarily saying much.

 

[Darth Rotor]

They're at least as efficient as private businesses are, in my experience. Of course, that isn't necessarily saying much.

One of the problems of measuring efficiency, and effectiveness, in this area is factoring in both cost benefit analysis of running a place, and the metrics of "billions served," as well as the customer based metrics of treatment, and timely treatment, and quality of treatment received.

There be dragons. I haven't done the kind of rigorous analysis on my own to both identify the correct measures on both facets of that gem. (It would be someone's full time job for some years to do it with sufficient rigor, and I'm not in the business.)

DR