This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Ron Paul: "Pure Democracy Is Dangerous"... When It's Purchased

Tyler Durden's picture





 

From an outright libertarian, the headline seems contrary; but Ron Paul's affirmation that "pure democracy is dangerous" critically confirms what Romney accidentally admitted: that enabling the majority to dictate the minority is a problem when the majority are receiving a [government] check. Bloomberg TV's Betty Liu looks a little shocked when the thoughtful Paul confirms bluntly that the reelection of Obama is driven simply by 'the people' being on the 'receiving end' of government benefits and that the US is "so far gone; we're over the cliff already." From Boehner and the lack of credibility in Washington to GOP's 'acceptance' of higher taxes and why he quit Congress, Ron Paul succinctly reminds many of the true state of the union in which we live...

 

 

Paul on Boehner's address to Congress on the fiscal cliff:

"Well, there are a couple of things in there. The problem is, there is no credibility. What I run into going around the country is that people I talk to generally do not believe anything they hear. Someone said we want to work together, fine. We will not raise taxes. They do not believe that. It goes on and on. They're just looking for the truth. They say all we need is a little compromise. No one expects that because they do not admit the truth. The truth is that we are broke. How do you compromise?  They only way you are going to compromise if you agree on what to cut. Instead they're trying to find out how they will agree on what they will protect. I do not think I have heard the answer. They talk about this fiscal cliff, but in my mind I work with the assumption we are already over the cliff, we're just wondering how we're going to land…it is unsolvable because you have to cut spending."

On whether there's any circumstance where the GOP would accept a type of tax increase:

"I do, but they're not in Washington. They're outside of Washington. I talk about it all the time. The few people I could work with, like a Dennis Kucinich and others, we had coalitions. We agreed to come together say on militarism. Why do we need to spend more than everyone else put together? You bring coalitions together of progressives and libertarian conservatives and say yes we have to cut across the board. Right now they say compromise on preservation of certain programs, but you have to get together and bring people together of different viewpoints. I do not call that compromise because I do not think anyone should sacrifice their principles. But there's no reason in the world you cannot get progressives and libertarians to agree on some of these cuts and spending we do not need."

On what he'd need to see in order for Congress to come together and approve on some kind of deal:

"As long as they move in the direction of less government. Maybe taking their oath of office seriously…That is long gone. We're so far gone. We're over the cliff. We cannot get enough people in congress in the next 5-10 years who will do the wise things. We have to prepare for having already fallen off the fiscal cliff. it is like what is going on in Greece. Every day you hear of a solution and things pop up, but they are in debt and spend too much money and then the people go out in the street and demonstrate. Romney was hit because one issue he was correct on, he was opposed the bailouts, and the people in the Midwest voted against him. Oh, we have to be taken care of! So that vote was sort of like what we are laughing at in Greece. Those 80,000 people do not want anything cut, they will not compromise. It is the people that are that way. That is why our revolution is significant. We're trying to change people's minds. That is why changing the minds of young people is so important."

 

"If you look at the numbers and the way pure democracy works, pure democracy is dangerous. The majority dictates against the minority. Right now the majority are receiving a check. That is why people were sort of surprised with these conditions that the president could get reelected. That is a bad sign in that there are more on the receiving end. People do not want anything cut. They want all the bailouts to come. They want the Fed to keep printing money. They do not believe we of gone off the cliff or are close to going off the cliff. They think we can patch it over, that we can somehow come up with a magic solution. You cannot have a budgetary solution if you do not change what the role of government should be. As long as you think we have to please the world and run this welfare state, all we will argue about is who will get the loot. "

On why he quit Congress:

"I think people had enough of me. I do not have much confidence in the political system and never did. My goal has always been to change people's minds because as long as people demand more government, they will get it. Government reflects the people. That is why I am excited to go to college campuses and I will continue to do that. That's where I will get a lot of support and they are saying, I agree with you, we do not need more government, we want more freedom and we want to be able to keep our own money. We want sound money. If you have sound money coming in you do not have deficits because you cannot print more money."

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 11/08/2012 - 22:41 | Link to Comment ACP
ACP's picture

Even more so because it's purchased by the fattest fat cat in the world, the US Govt.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 22:42 | Link to Comment fightthepower
Thu, 11/08/2012 - 22:45 | Link to Comment ACP
ACP's picture

Amazing that all we need is a few small tweaks to the US Constitution to damp the effect of govt money, but it'll take WWIII to get those tweaks. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 23:10 | Link to Comment TwoShortPlanks
TwoShortPlanks's picture

It one giant shake-down. The puppets need to see that they are puppets, then see that there is a puppeteer.

People who get all tied-up in politics are merely getting tangled up in the strings of the puppeteer.

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r3-MNonZ64

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqyG5VE-Y1U&feature=relmfu

Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIe9-QJeILI&feature=relmfu

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 23:35 | Link to Comment Jack Napier
Jack Napier's picture

Ron Paul spent the better part of 3 decades in politics stroking us off with what we wanted to hear, had 2 Audit the Fed bills go absolutely nowhere, and now he's retiring with all the free money people gave him with their false hopes? His Masonic and Jesuit overlords must be very proud of the job he did in keeping this nation complacent in thinking he would actually do something.

Quit giving this guy publicity. He already wasted enough of our time.

Lock and load bitchez. The system has failed. Where's Anonymous?

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 23:37 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Longtime congressman Ron Paul has always refused to participate in the congressional pension system, labeling it "immoral".[5]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 23:47 | Link to Comment Supernova Born
Supernova Born's picture

Ron Paul makes me sad.

He confirms my worst fears about the future of this "country" in an articulate and convincing way.

Damn.

Thu, 11/08/2012 - 23:56 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I know what you mean but Ron Paul is also one of those guys who comes along and renews your faith in the possibility of a better future. And it can't happen without you.

 

Ron Paul’s Task: Build Up the Remnant


Ron Paul, without a friend in the world, nothing but hostility aimed at him from all directions, stood his ground and did not back down. Just reiterated his points even stronger. I was blown away. I felt at that moment that the world changed forever, that here had been this massive shift in reality and what could happen.


It wouldn’t be the last such moment. In a GOP debate in Florida of all places, Ron Paul said the U.S. government should normalize trade relations with Cuba. In a South Carolina debate he stuck by his guns on the drug war. At a meeting of an Arab-American association, he was asked if he had a special speech tailored to their group. No, he said. It would be the same speech he gives everywhere.


That’s who Ron Paul is.


Why did he do these things? Why didn’t he take the path of least resistance by speaking in slogans and taking no political risks?


One reason is obvious: he’s an honest man.


The other reason may not be so obvious: he was seeking out the Remnant....

 

And that’s what Dr. Paul has been doing. He’s been looking for this heretofore invisible Remnant, giving them comfort, making them aware of themselves, providing them a rallying point. Selling out for the sake of mainstream respectability would defeat his purpose entirely. Those approaches repel the Remnant, Nock said. On the other hand, the truth teller who appeals to the Remnant will find them.


To be sure, Ron Paul has wanted to make his message as appealing to as many people as possible. He never gratuitously drives anyone away. But he has accomplished this task not by the usual method, which is to water down the message according to focus-group results. He has simply explained himself, boldly and without retreat.


 

http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods193.html

 

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 00:29 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Lew Rockwell is a corporatist douche pretending to be a libertarian.  Too bad Ron every hooked up with him.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 00:39 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Ron Paul: Democracy is great until I disagree with it and then democracy is a problem.

lol, real libertarian you folks have there! Next thing he's going to say is that rights come from God, oh wait...

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 00:48 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ron Paul's biggest failure is his sophomoric and frankly simplistic belief in free markets.  But at least he believes in free something, which is far more than the Red Team or Blue Team can muster.  He would usher in a reset which is badly needed, so he's okay in my book even if naive and overly ideological.  

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:01 | Link to Comment Cabreado
Cabreado's picture

You seem to be confused... and without conviction.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:12 | Link to Comment Enslavethechild...
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:26 | Link to Comment Michaelwiseguy
Michaelwiseguy's picture

Step 1 of the 3 step plan is complete.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:13 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

democracy is GOOD when majority are educated, good, strong people.

democracy is BAD when greedy idiots outnumber smart kind people.

 

gold standard is BAD when you are already in debt .... as if US is going to pay back China with gold?

 

Ron Paul hated Fed for printing money...but Fed is a scapegoat.

 

REAL CULPRIT IS CORRUPT CONGRESS ENRICHING THEMSELVES VERSUS INTERESTS OF THE SOCIETY.

 

 

 

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 05:06 | Link to Comment Enslavethechild...
EnslavethechildrenforBen's picture

We are not in debt, nor do we owe anything to China. Democracy is good when enforced by it's citizens at gunpoint instead of forced on it's citizens by gunpoint

Those in our present society with guns are the Redcoats, and we the people have no minute men or Militia to defend ourselves.

The sooner the dollar collapses completely, the better. We can have sound money if we want it

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 05:18 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

the problem is democrats, republicans and majority of American consumers don't want sound money as they love debt spending for today instead of investing for tomorrow.

 

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 05:35 | Link to Comment Enslavethechild...
EnslavethechildrenforBen's picture

They like that the dollar exports inflation and imports wealth. Morals, integrity and dignity have no place in a self oriented society

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 06:06 | Link to Comment smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

man, that paul guy should have ran for president....

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:57 | Link to Comment infotechsailor
infotechsailor's picture

"As long as you think we have to please the world " ... he surely said POLICE the world.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 10:54 | Link to Comment yars
yars's picture

Correct, this entire transcript is bungled.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:01 | Link to Comment JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

democrats, republicans and majority of American consumers don't want sound money as they love debt spending for today instead of investing for tomorrow.

I disagree. I  have never met anyone that wants the US government to take on more debt. They simply disagree on what to cut, and since the lobbyists tend to know where the bodies are buried, nothing ever gets cut.

When we crash and burn we will rebuild, but it will all be for nought if we dont hang some bankers, lawyers and lobbyists first and starting with the people who fall into all three groupings especially.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:36 | Link to Comment kill switch
kill switch's picture

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner..

To the Republic for which it stands? Anyone..

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:22 | Link to Comment ONO47
ONO47's picture

The real culprit is us because we let them do it.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:52 | Link to Comment beaglebog
beaglebog's picture

How can democracy ever be "good" ?

 

How can it ever be good that one man's fate is determined by the votes of his neighbours? 

 

No. Voting is an evil.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:32 | Link to Comment Marco
Marco's picture

If those neighbours have the power to evict him from his home his fate is in their hands to begin with ... there is no freedom for the peon, laissez faire doesn't change that.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:35 | Link to Comment juliawong
juliawong's picture

"gold standard is BAD when you are already in debt .... as if US is going to pay back China with gold?"

Agree. I can understand how Gold is "honest money" but switching to a solid money like gold now from the "funny money" over the last several decades will lock in billions of people into perpetual debt-slavery. Which is NOT FUNNY. Personally, I don't think US will payback China with gold, nor that switching to Gold standard is a real solution given most people are in debt (including the third world countries). So I admire the intention to have "honest" currency, but it's just too FAR gone into the hole now that it's economically suicidal for most to even contemplate. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:49 | Link to Comment illyia
illyia's picture

democracy is GOOD when majority are educated, good, strong people.

democracy is BAD when greedy idiots outnumber smart kind people.

And, history has gone to the winners, who put out textbooks, that taught us that Columbus sailed the ocean blue and just about nothing else. The only real educated citizens are those who educated themselves.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 11:12 | Link to Comment Overfed
Overfed's picture

Democracy would be great if it took a 2/3 majority to pass any law, and if every law had a 10 year (or fewer) sunset.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 11:27 | Link to Comment El Diablo Rojo
El Diablo Rojo's picture

Democracy is NEVER good.  We had a Republic at one time.....

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:33 | Link to Comment DonGenaro
DonGenaro's picture

What is phase 2 ?

Phase 1 is Collect Underpants.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:27 | Link to Comment fourchan
fourchan's picture

the longer we go the more right he becomes.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:16 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Just capable of complex thought and nuance.  Something you apparently would not understand.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:29 | Link to Comment centipede
centipede's picture

He, he, so smart and unable to understand what free market actually is. :-)

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:17 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

nothing is free

 

 

you can't have free market without responsible market participants or citizens.

 

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:27 | Link to Comment centipede
centipede's picture

Free market doesn't mean it is for free. It can be "free" only if participants responsibly uphold the same right for all other participants.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 05:09 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

there are natural monopolies.

 

people in these natural monopolies are pushing for free markets because they know they won't be affected while others suffer under increased competition.

 

also some markets should exist otherwise you are subsidizing immoral behavior (hiring illegal alien underage children for hard labor) by penalizing moral behavior (hiring expensive US citizens)

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:06 | Link to Comment howenlink
howenlink's picture

The vast majority of monopolies are either government monopolies or government created ones.  Theses are coersive, criminal, and immoral.  Think about it.

 

And, BTW, free market does not mean violation of childrens' rights, either.

 

(Why do I feed the trolls?)

 

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:04 | Link to Comment JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

nothing is free  ... you can't have free market without responsible market participants or citizens.

You are exactly right, but the anarchists and rigid anti-government libertarians will neg you for evere disagreeing with them on anything, lol.

And the Truthers are just stupid as shit in a burning bag.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:25 | Link to Comment Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

you can't have free market without responsible market participants or citizens.

No. You can't have free markets without strong prohibitions (laws) against the initiation of force, and fraud. Something our current economy is lacking. Perhaps, because the government has a forced monopoly on the adjudication of law. Yes, you are correct in that monopolies ---> bad. 

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:18 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Ron Paul says many of the right things and clearly has more conviction than many American politicians. 

For me he goes wrong primarily in terms of science & religion.

Once you start saying rights come from Santa Claus the idea that a free market can exist starts to make a lot of sense. And then science becomes a moot point, way down the list after God, God's free market & property rights.  

He's a pretty typical Texas Republican, not unlike George W. Bush. The main difference being RP actually walks the walk rather than simply talking. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:39 | Link to Comment centipede
centipede's picture

Actually, you are exeptionally right here. Rights really do not come from Santa Claus. They are a result of one important condition. Equality of rights for all of us. Solve that condition and you will maybe finally understand what rights are. Free market is clearly one of them.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:56 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Equality of rights as defined by....?

Rights are defined by the people who exist within the society, just as the free market is defined by those who participate in it. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:06 | Link to Comment centipede
centipede's picture

No. Rights can not be defined arbitrarily. That is the whole point. They have to be equal for all of us. You can not initiate a force against me if both of us have to have the same rights. Only a right fulfilling that condition is the real right. Free market is that kind of right. Everybody has right to freely create and exchange values with others and that condition is not violated.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:13 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Of course they are not defined "arbitrarily" they are defined by you and I and the society in which we live.

These rights are then enforced by you and I and the rest of the society in which we live. Over time they will evolve. 

"They have to be equal for all of us."

And how do we ensure that? Better - who ensures this?

"Everybody has right to freely create and exchange values with others and that condition is not violated."

Another platitude. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:28 | Link to Comment centipede
centipede's picture

You still do not want to understand. The fact, that we are not able in particular situation to ensure equality of rights doesn't mean that we do not have those rights. Even slaves had those rights and they certainly were not able to ensure that.

You were asking where the definitions of those rights are supposed to come from. Definitions do not represent any ability to ensure anything.

Are able to prove that that "platitude" doesn't fulfill the equailty of rights? So why shouldn't it be a right for all of us? Any rational reason?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:03 | Link to Comment Taffy Lewis
Taffy Lewis's picture

Wow, James_Cole, LetThemEatRand, and other stupid fucks in a circle jerk of stupid fucks - on one thread.

Should I play the lottery tomorrow?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:36 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

"Rights" don't exist in nature.

 

laws of nature, physics, economy, etc. don't give a shit about your human rights.

 

"rights" are what elites define to promote optimal society for their benefit.

 

Founding fathers' definition of rights excluded rights of natives, rights of slaves, rights of women, etc.

 

African-Americans got "rights" when elites wanted them for factory labor instead of on the farms.

 

Gays get "right" to marry when new york real estate prices are ridiculous and only professional same sex couples without kids can afford them.

 

Illegal Mexicans get legal "rights" when elites need them to replace aging white lower class laborers.

 

In the end, it is all about the money...control of your and other's life.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:11 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

You're arguing natural rights, which I see as both irrelevent & non-existent.

The only thing that matters is the rights we agree on and that the law upholds. 

Not to be confusing, but I see morality as yet another separate issue. 

"So why shouldn't it be a right for all of us? Any rational reason?"

Yes, because "freely create and exchange values" should only read "create and exchange values" and end with "as dictated by market forces." Because market forces will both limit and expand free exchange by design. Marking the whole idea of "free exchange" as the absurdity that it is.  

If GS wants to pay a lot of money to quote stuff your orders they should be able to do that if that's within the legality of the market. This practice severely limits your ability to "Freely" create and exchange values but that's how it works. GS pays so that they get the advantage. You don't pay so you are at a disadvantage. 

That's what I don't understand about zh, they go on and on about free markets and then complain endlessly abut things like quote stuffing and HFT. If the market needs more regulation to stay alive / efficient, say it. Don't hide behind this free-market bullshit. 

As I said before, functions of markets are determined by the people participating in them, not magic. Same goes with rights. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:58 | Link to Comment centipede
centipede's picture

Why are natural rights irrelevent? Is equality of rights for you irrelevant? For me it is much more imporant than whatever is legalized by law and enforced. That is exactly what I should do my best to achieve and change existing laws accordingly. Only mental slave resigns on those rights.

If we do not know rationaly define what rights to agree on and why what is the point?

Market forces are just mysticism, not a real proof. Are you saying that we shouldn't be free to create and exchange values just because you for some mystical reason think it is absurd? This is supposed to be a rational reasoning? If you are able to identify any real "practice severely limiting your ability to "Freely" create and exchange values" that is exactly what you should try fight if we want to uphold our rights. I agree, GS has privileges incompatible with free market and that is exactly why we should try to change it.

The only regulation free market needs is the upholding of equal rights (no privileges) which is in reality crime prevention and suppression.

You are still confusing rights with what is currently enforced. Rights generally, justice and free market specifically are concepts we should strive for in the same way the slaves were trying to become free.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:26 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Natural rights are entirely subjective, I'm willing to bet you don't have the same definition of natural rights as someone in Saudi Arabia. In addition, natural rights are only of any consequence when exercised and how that happens is defined by laws which are enforced by some form of government. This is why a universal natural law is both non-existent & irrelevant until they are tied to some sort of societal contract. 

"Market forces are just mysticism, not a real proof. "

Huh??

"Are you saying that we shouldn't be free to create and exchange values just because you for some mystical reason think it is absurd?"

Of course not. 

"If you are able to identify any real "practice severely limiting your ability to "Freely" create and exchange values" that is exactly what you should try fight if we want to uphold our rights. I agree, GS has privileges incompatible with free market and that is exactly why we should try to change it."

GS privileges are NOT incompatible with free market unless the market exists under a legal framework enforced by a governing body which determins they are breaking laws instituted by said body. Free market to a large extent is whatever the people engaging in it define it as. 

"The only regulation free market needs is the upholding of equal rights (no privileges) which is in reality crime prevention and suppression."

What is crime? Is trading on a direct wire to the NYSE a crime? Should it be a crime? Should quote stuffing be a defined as a crime? GS would argue it shouldn't be. Once you start trying to define what is and isn't allowed within the "free-market" you start to realize the free-market isn't so free. 

And then you can grow-up and accept the basic caveat and get into the real work of creating a fair democratic system with efficient regulation. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:43 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

money itself is claim on society.

society gets to decide how and who can earn money.

 

nobody wants to watch "free" football where rich guy can buy all the top players and bench them instead of having them play for opposing team. referees and rules of the game need to exist for best outcome and fair play.

 

same with market competition. unrestricted market competition means winner takes all forever.

 

you like Microsoft windows without anti-trust laws?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 06:31 | Link to Comment W T Effington
W T Effington's picture

"Nobody wants to watch free football where a rich guy can buy all the top players and bench them instead of having them play for opposing teams" - Aldous Huxley  - Your premise seems to be that you and others have the right to watch "good" football. This premise is utterly false. If an Owner and a Player enter into a contract that frankly has nothing to do with you then leave them the fuck alone. Period. You seem to have the notion that you can thrust your self into their private agreement and order them to do your bidding. "Oh well its not just me, other people like to watch good football as well. We together create the will of the people and our will must be made manifest". Tyranny of the majority for the sake of "the best outcome" is still partial slavery. You sound fearful. Monopolies are creations of the state. And no, you do not have a right to watch good football. The free market takes care of that.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 05:11 | Link to Comment centipede
centipede's picture

He, he, you told me that I argue natural rights when I argued equqlity of rights and now you are claiming that they are entirely subjective? :-) How can be equqlity od rights for all of us subjective? What could be more objective than that? You obviously do not read what I write and just repeat the same thing confusing rights with what is currently enforced. It is irrelevant what is enforced in SA right now. If it violates right equality it should be fought against.

Well, you did not give any real rational proof why is it absurd. Try harder.

GS privileges ARE clearly incompatible with free market because in free market there should not be any privileges. Rights should be equal and any privileges obviously violate that condition. It is perfectly consistent and what you are referring to as free market is grossly inconsistent with its definition.

Actually, that is the point, that we should strive for market as free as possible and as crime free as possible. The real market will never be absolutly free. But if GS is trading on a direct wire to the NYSE everybody else should have the same right. That doesn't mean that everbody will be able to do it for the same reason, that I will not be able to manufacture airplanes.

I don't see how accepting equality of rights violation could possibly mean any "growing up" and represent "a fair democratic system with efficient regulation". I think that you should grow-up and finally understand what is the difference between rights and enforced privileges.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 07:24 | Link to Comment clymer
clymer's picture

James:

Surely you must agree that the inalienable rights defined in the document that provides the framework for American government, defined in the bill of rights, have been and continue to be usurped by organized groups that wish to dominate at the individual level.

You write as if you believe the natural order of the state should form so that only those ruthless and cunning enough should rise to a controlling level of power.

Our constitution was written to keep a leash on this form of tyrrany, not promote it.

No where in the constitution is the word "Democracy" written. We are a constitutional republic.

You are summarily wrong (as well as a fucking wind bag - walk away from the computer for a few minutes, jeeesh)

 

 

 

 

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 10:04 | Link to Comment acetinker
acetinker's picture

TY, clymer!  This has been like watching a battle of wits between two unarmed opponents.  One is arguing for "rights" granted by the state (actually liberties) and the other argues for natural rights- those being the only ones I'm interested in.  IOW, THE STATE CAN KMA!  In no way, shape or form am I obligated to submit to its tyranny and the bullshit idea that it can "grant" me that which I already have.

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 00:39 | Link to Comment Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

There are no rights without remedies.

There are no freedoms without forces.

There are natural laws which emerge from the mysterious existence of the universe, as observed by our approach to understanding the conservation of energy and momentum, and the special case of the preservation of information. There are no other "natural rights" than that we participate in the flow of energy, which apparently exists, and cannot be created out of nothing, nor sent to nothing, within our frame of reference, as far as we are able to demonstrate in the world that we appear to be living in. Thus, ALL "natural rights" are derived from the conservation of energy, and thus, "energy" has the same meaning as "spirit" and the totality of energy has the same meaning as God. Similarly, entropy is effectively the scientific approach to evil, and the each entropic aspect is evil.

Thus, the conservation of energy, et al., are the reasons why we have ideals like "truth" or "justice" etc., since those are what manifest the appearance of "natural rights." However, all the stories that any human beings tell are done through some set of SUBTRACTIONS, like how the English language, or any other language, cuts the world up into pieces, by definition, and then assembles those pieces into systems of understanding. ANY and ALL human stories are necessarily based on some set of subtracting parts from the Whole, and then, attempting to put those more or less arbitrary pieces back into some "whole," which can never be The Whole, since there was never any absolute subtraction, but rather, all subtractions were relative illusions, and thus relative lies. Therefore, automatically that any human beings start telling stories, those are systems of lies. The relative meanings of those lies come from the way that those telling those stories can back them up with force.

Human laws are always organized systems of lies, operating organized robbery. Those are always relative participations of pieces and parts of the Whole. From the perspective of "natural rights" there is simply the flow of energy, as forces. That can be organized into complex enough systems, so that those become relatively symbolic. However, the energy flowing through our brains is not fundamentally different than that flowing through our bodies, and that is not fundamentally different than that flowing through our environment.

There is no "freedom" and thus no "free market" that does not automatically come from, and depend upon, the flow of forces, which is based on energy, and which therefore, manifests the apparent conservation of energy. That conservation of energy (which is our currently best understanding of the laws of nature, and thus the source of natural rights) flows through all of its transformations.  Freedom does not mean anything without a force, and force does not mean anything without energy existing.

"Rights" have no meaning without remedies to back them up with force. The systems of human societies are aggregates of human beings who have the ability to tell stories, and back those stories up with the forces through their bodies. The realities of human activities are ALWAYS relative organized lies, operating organized robberies, which approach, but can never reach, the transcendental perfection of the conservation of Energy, which is practically the same inconceivable concept as God. All along the way, there is constantly the apparent increase of entropy, as the energy spreads out in time and space. It is totally mysterious how or why the energy ever got concentrated in the first place, but it is simply the empirically observed situation that energy is spreading out, and thus entropy is increasing. Thus, we ARE the flow of energy, which is like fire, and that living fire is surfing on the waves of greater fires, apparently spreading out, and maybe burning out ... (although we have no way to know that, anymore than we can know how and why the energy was able to become concentrated in the first place.)

My point is that our best scientific understanding of things are based on the flow of conserved energy, through self-organizing systems, which are transforming that energy. Those ideas are the best ways that we have to approach understanding everything else around us, physical and biological, in our environment, and therefore, those are the ideas that we should use to attempt to understand human beings, and human societies.

The central problem to doing that is the general systems fact that the most labile component of a system "controls" that system. In the case of human beings, that means that the people who are the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, control the human society. That is the history of militarism, where victory went to those who were the best at deceits, and wherein spies were the most important soldiers. The whole of Neolithic civilization was built on those foundations. Therefore, the entire economic system, with its ways that people can take from nature, and take from each other, and must give back to nature, and give back to each other, evolved and exists due to the natural laws, which are the source of "natural rights."  However, the ideas of human rights are always sublimely paradoxical due to the unavoidable paradox of enforcement, which is that only those who are the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, can actually enforce any human laws.

Therefore, the real world consists of layer after layer of organized crime gangs, governments, and shadow governments, who actually observe and follow the flow of energy, as natural laws, through themselves. Any human justice, in all human relationships, are always totally tangled up with all of that basically being organized crime, on larger and larger scales. Those who do that the most and the best, are those who always lie about doing that the most and the best. Way, way too few human beings understand that, inside of believing in the biggest bullies' bullshit that somehow those bullies are the "good guys." There are no finite "good guys!" There are only different systems of organized lies, operating organized robbery, in conflict with each other. They ALL participate in the flow of ALL.

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 22:41 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

very good reading there, RM.

it's always an important task to pick apart our understanding of those "truths" that seem evident, but in fact are human mind constructs,

However, all the stories that any human beings tell are done through some set of SUBTRACTIONS, like how the English language, or any other language, cuts the world up into pieces, by definition, and then assembles those pieces into systems of understanding.

subtractions, from the Whole, yes, and then NAMING that piece stolen, naming and claiming as a dis-covery, as if any THING dis-covered never existed prior to the naming and claiming.  until fairly recently, even wives and children were owned by their paternal surnames, traditionally.

this is how Man operates in his small world, furiously running about naming and claiming, such brilliance!  innovative!  genius even!!

lol, yeah.  and of course, name & claim & PATENT (royal-ties, great descriptive), the inevitable (d)evolutionary step. . .

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:27 | Link to Comment Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

Mr Cole, you need to look up the definition of "arbitrary".

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:11 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

"Free" like all words in the English language has a specific definition.

 

free/fr?/  Adjective: Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 05:16 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

"free" as in Ann Romney is free to do as she wishes since she is "free" from need to work.

"free" as in free slave and illegal labor. US just exported slavery to China.

 

becareful of anyone who has a stake in power position by using words like "freedom"

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 07:48 | Link to Comment RSloane
RSloane's picture

Ann Romney has multiple schlerosis, as it has been pointed out to you before. But take heart, in the last four years there's been a 400% increase in disabled Americans who also never have to work again because the rest of us will support them for life. We are now the most disabled society of all Western economies. That should cheer you up immeasurably.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 07:49 | Link to Comment RSloane
RSloane's picture

DP

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:35 | Link to Comment Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

Free, as in, free to exercise your rights to control your own destiny as long as doing so does not infringe on the freedom of another.That includes being free to exchange your labor for money.

 

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:20 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

"free" as in Ann Romney is free to do as she wishes since she is "free" from need to work.

"free" as in free slave and illegal labor. US just exported slavery to China.

 

No, "free" as in your post is free of any useful content.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:47 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

Rights really do not come from Santa Claus.

As much as I love what the Founders did, they had the "rights" thing wrong.

There's no such thing as "rights".   If a "right" can be ignored by govt, then it's not a "right".

The Founders didn't declare "rights".   They declared limitations on government power.  Govt can't interfere with free speech, govt can't interfere with people possessing guns, etc.

"Rights" come from "God"?

Nonsense.  There's not one single place in the entire bible saying anything about "rights", yet slavery is mentioned many times, old and new testament, no indication anything wrong with it, just warnings to treat slaves properly.

Yep, Founders got the "rights" thing wrong.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:53 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

There's no such thing as "rights".   If a "right" can be ignored by govt, then it's not a "right".

 

Do you believe that Obama has a right to kill you at any time he sees fit as he claims in the NDAA? Is it possible that you are confusing his ability to kill you with his right to kill you?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 07:45 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

I think his point is not that "Obama has a right to kill you at any time", it's more that "you don't not have the right not to be killed at any time by Obama" since the Government can ignore your self-proclaimed "right".

In other words, Might is Right.

There is an inherent contradiction in mixing "Inherent Rights" with "Freedom from Government": if you are entitled to be free from government interference, so is everybody else and if everybody is free from government interference, then nobody is going to interfere if a couple of them choose to get together, arm themselves and come take your stuff, rape your wife and enslave you and force you to work on their mine. You might believe you have a "Right" to freedom, but in practice your "Rights" are only those which either you yourself can enforce or those that a well armed entity can enforce for you.

This does not mean that "Rights" are not important, just means that knowing exactly what one's rights are from deduction from first principles is not sufficient to actually have those rights in practice since only in an Utopian world will everybody respect everybody else's "Rights" without force of arms or threat of that.

Talking of "Rights" as if knowing one's natural Rights is sufficient is a form of simplistic idealism comparable to those that believe(d) in "Equality for all".

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:24 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Government is not necessary for safety and security. Protective services like all other things can be better provided by the market. Does government make you feel safe amnd secure? It has the opposite effect on me.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:55 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

cranky-old-geezer -

Well, you said it better than I did. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:58 | Link to Comment centipede
centipede's picture

Both of you are just confused what rights actually are. That's all.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:14 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Enlighten us to your definition then.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:30 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

If I may, individual rights can be defined as the prerogative of a person to self determination.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:41 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

That's not a definition of what rights are.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:18 | Link to Comment JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

That's not a definition of what rights are.

Rights are those things that a legitimate government cannot remove without becoming a tyranical government, and thus revolt against it becomes justified and morally correct. Goes back to the concept of disenfeudalization, if I remember right. In that original concept we were morally bound to obey our lords unless they became tyranical, that being proven by incidents in which they violated our natural rights given by God. A person could, if a free person, issue a statement of defidelity, listing the conditions for it and then appeal to a neutral authorit, like the king, next lord up the chain or the church to recognise the legitimacy of ones defiance.

The Declaration of Independence was a national statement of defidelity and revolt against England, claiming violation of the colonies traditional and natural rights as granted to all men by God Himself in order to justify the revolt. Mitterand recognised the legitmacy of the US claims though a very conservative Austrian minister of the 19th century because he understood the meaning of what rights are and the DoI convinced him and many others.

The government does not give rights; it only gives privileges. And by tradition and law, only free men have rights. For example, if you enlist into the military you are renouncing your status as a free person for a period of time. Your rights become compromised and you are covered under a subset of laws that derive from laws that governed indentured servants. The Mamelukes of Egypt, for example, were actually slaves to the government, but took over and ran things in Egypt for centuries.

People who have not been in the military and who have never experienced the loss of their freedom and rights in that or any other way, really dont know what they would be missing. Its only abstract to them till the boot in the face educates them all about it.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:25 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

That's not a definition of what rights are.

 

Yes it is.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:10 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

Fair enough.

So for all to have individual rights, all have to have a "prerogative to self determination".

Here's a scenario for you: You and your neighbour have farms. You spent all year tilling your fields and taking care of your farm animals. Your neighbour spent the whole time training combat tactics, taking care of his weapons and making friends with people who have weapons and combat tactics. Comes winter and you're confortable in your house with food and warmth, your neighbour has no food.

Would it be within your neighbour's prerogative to self determination to come over one night with his heavilly armed buddies, kill you and take your stuff?

If not, why not?

How good is your chosen way of self determination be if your neighbour's way of self determination is to take other people's stuff?

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:32 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Would it be within your neighbour's prerogative to self determination to come over one night with his heavilly armed buddies, kill you and take your stuff?

If not, why not?

 

Of course not. You have a right to self determination as does your neighbor. If your neighbor tries to determine your behavior or the disposition of your property he has violated your rights. Frankly I'm surprised that you weren't able to figure that out on your own.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:05 | Link to Comment centipede
centipede's picture

Haven't I already done that? It is pretty simple and I have written about it above quite a lot. Everything what fulfills the right equality condition.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:09 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

That's not the point.

It's pretty clear that the natural definition of Rights is based on the principle of "My Rights start where your Rights end".

However in the real world that definition is an unworkable ideal since it's literally impossible that everybody will respect your Rights, share your definition of Rights and agree with you on the borders between your Rights and their Rights. Just look at places like Somalia to see what happens in real life when everybody enjoys their God Given Right to self determination without any form of State.

All societies that are actually stable enough to survive and prosper have some form of governance structure exactly because somebody has to protect the Rights of the many from the few that do not respect those Rights and arbitrate between people with different definitions of Rights and of the borders between different people's Rights. The thing is that, in order to create space for that governance structure everybody has to give up a bit of their Rights.

Just talking about "Natural Rights" or "God Given Rights" as a solution for life's problems is extremelly simplistic and even self-deceiving.

In the real world what we need to be talking about is what is the best kind of governance structure so that people retain the most amount of Rights. (And don't forget that said governance structure needs to be able to defend itself from other people with other governance structures).

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:34 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

In PA all liquor is sold in state stores. But it would be absurd to suggest that only the government can sell booze. Likewise it is absurd to suggest that only government can provide security. If folks depended on cops to be on the scene of every crime as it was happening we'd all be dead by now.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 12:33 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

Who said anything about Government?

What I said is that each and every person will in practice have to give away some of their Natural Rights. This is due to the need for defense from others who not share your views and to the need of arbitration because at the border where one person's Rights meet somebody else's Rights, no two people will ever agree on everything down to the smallest details (said arbitration will need the means to make itself respected, which, when one of the persons is pig-headed, means enforcement).

As societies grow and get more complex so they contact bigger and more complex enemies and have many more areas where one person's definition of My Rights colide with another Person definition so the size and complexity of its defense and arbitration structures also grows. This growth quickly overwelms the ability of what a small group of families can manage in an ad-hoc fashion which is how dedicated governance structures are born.

There is only so far a society can go with simple principles and ad-hoc structures like councils of village elders and any such simple society will not survive long next to a society which has things like dedicated armies and is aggressive in its posture.

This is why the simple concept of Natural Rights is worthless in modern society - society is too complex and there are two many well armed groups of people around that might not share your lofty principles, so that means that even if by some magic means you setup your society based on Natural Rights it will either be overwelmed by a society that doesn't give a shit about them or it will by need evolve (devolve) away from that pure and simple concept in order to survive.

Natural Rights on their own are not the response to today's problems, at most they're the easy bit in building an Ethical an Moral framework that can solve today's problems. As such, dwelling again and again into Natural Rights alone is little more than intellectual masturbation.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 12:53 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Who said anything about Government?

 

You did. One post up. You said:

 

All societies that are actually stable enough to survive and prosper have some form of governance structure exactly because somebody has to protect the Rights of the many from the few that do not respect those Rights and arbitrate between people with different definitions of Rights and of the borders between different people's Rights.

 

Next...

This growth quickly overwelms the ability of what a small group of families can manage in an ad-hoc fashion which is how dedicated governance structures are born.

 

Governance is based on the rule on an elite class through violence. There is no reason that individuals can't organize themselves in a voluntary manner and thereby accomplish their goals in a more ethical and efficient manner than rule by violent strangers.

 

This is why the simple concept of Natural Rights is worthless in modern society - society is too complex and there are two many well armed groups of people around that might not share your lofty principles, so that means that even if by some magic means you setup your society based on Natural Rights it will either be overwelmed by a society that doesn't give a shit about them or it will by need evolve (devolve) away from that pure and simple concept in order to survive.

I see no reason why those who prefer voluntary interaction will not eventually overwhelm those who like to be told what to do and be punished for doing that which is in their own interest. Is there a reason why you believe that those who strive to act responsibly as individuals are less competative than those who just want to leave all the important thinking and acting to someone else? I would think that the opposite is true.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 07:35 | Link to Comment clymer
clymer's picture

@geezer, ur a tool. The American system was created by people, for people so that we may be protected from the tyranny and despoitism that formed in so many systems throughout history. It isn't perfect but it has promoted the growth of an empire (regrettably). Hopefully we the people can shrink this Nation back down and get back to the egalitarian business of human progress, instead of reading tripe from fucking stunted midgets like you and James_douche 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:06 | Link to Comment JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

Once you start saying rights come from Santa Claus...

No one believes that rights come from Santa Claus, stupid ass.

If you cant even get the most basic things straight, how can you ever make an informed decision?

Oh, thats right you dont need to; the mass media talking heads will tell you what to think, lol.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:50 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Replace Santa Claus with God, Tooth Fairy, etc. - it's all the same nonesense. They're just things humans make up.

The problem I have - as I've stated a number of times - is when people start telling me my rights come from some magic nonsense and are therefore absolute as to whatever that magic nonsense says (and whoever has a line to/from that magic nonsense) all rational discussion breaks down. 

Also, I don't believe for a second a government has an interest in protecting what they have agreed are my rights UNLESS they are forced to. 

My argument was simply against the idea that rights originate "from God." Rights come from people and are upheld by people and change over time. 

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 12:30 | Link to Comment JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

Replace Santa Claus with God, Tooth Fairy, etc. - it's all the same nonesense. They're just things humans make up.

No, there is a huge difference between things that came about in this natural universe versus that eternal thing which gave birth to the natural universe. It is mathematically impossible for time to have an infinitely distant origen, just as it is impossible to arrive at an infinitely distant point in the future. The latter h as no end point and the first has no starting point. This is why Socrates stopped believing in greek polytheism and began exploring the idea of what an eternal Creator would be like, which Plato and Aristotle then refined to a concept very consistent, thogh still a bit different in some regards, from the Jewish, Christian concept of God.

This is a habit atheists have today that they shoot their fucking mouths off about shit that they dont fucking understand at all. Period.

Also, I don't believe for a second a government has an interest in protecting what they have agreed are my rights UNLESS they are forced to.

Well, it seems we do agree on something. Originating from god is a good idea and all, IMO, but it is pointless to people who could not give a shit about God, yes, people like Mao, Stalin, Lenin and other atheists.

My argument was simply against the idea that rights originate "from God." Rights come from people and are upheld by people and change over time.

If rights came from people then they would be philosophically identical to 'people issued' privileges. People dont have shit  to do with giving out rights, or else they wouldnt be a right. What you are asserting is a curcular set of unsupportable contentions. We have rights from people and people give us those rights because they are rights? lol, fucking stupid shit.

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 20:35 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

You contradict yourself here:

"Well, it seems we do agree on something. Originating from god is a good idea and all, IMO, but it is pointless to people who could not give a shit about God, yes, people like Mao, Stalin, Lenin and other atheists."

"What you are asserting is a curcular set of unsupportable contentions. We have rights from people and people give us those rights because they are rights?"

What are you are saying is that people / gov can take away rights but they can't give them. My point would be, in practice there is little difference, regardless of what your opinion of natural rights are. i.e. by upholding freedom of speech your government is protecting many of your rights.  

My issue is that one can't argue with a religious fundation for rights. For instance, if you were to live in a country under Sharia Law you would have to go along with the restriction of your American rights or risk being thrown out / locked up / killed etc.

If you were to try and debate those who are restricting your rights you would have no possible argument, they hold up the book and that's it. 

In a country of diverse religious beliefs this simply can't work.

And I'm an agnostic not an atheist. 

Sun, 11/11/2012 - 08:13 | Link to Comment JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

Mr Cole, what I wrote contains no contradiction, as there is a distinction between what a person or government can do with moral justification and whithout that justification.

Yes, a government can round up 90% of its subjects and slaughter them in the name of over-population, but it cant do so while recognising their God-given rights.

You say, 'So what good is moral justification then?'

Well, most of us who try to live moral lives see those who do not as kind of like the Zombies in a zombie apocoplypse. They can wander around in the fields all they like, but if they try to storm our perimeter the rest of us need to unite and put them back down even if its only in the form of the 'invisible silent hand of popular will'. I.e. as long as the bastards stay in Europe, Asia, and Africa killing and feeding off each other most of us dont give a shit. But some still do and help what they can, and when the zombies come at us the 'live and let live' ends PDQ and the silent invisible hand kicks into gear.

That is why so many of us supported wars against communist tyrants in Vietnam, Korea and support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to our pain and loss. My friends sometimes get carried away. But it is better to fuck up in a war that is over there instead of in our own back yard  they say, but if they paid more heed to their own moral frameworks they wouldnt have done a lot of what they did and will come back to us down the road.

So, the strength of being morally right lies in the intolerance of tyrany and amoral behavior, which is much lesser today than it was in 1776. Once we made the moral case against King George, some Eurpean nations swung over to us and helped us out in a critical moment.

Another example, in the US Civil War (aka the War of Northern Aggression) the South had the moral high ground untill the Emancipation Proclamation. At that point the Silent Invisible Hand of righteous indignation of slavery slowly turned events against the South. There were more Northern recruits and fewer Southern recruits once it became about slavery and more sympathy for the North abroad and less for the South.

But we are still the majority in this country so far, and that has made all the difference. People still swarm to our shores and for the last forty years our enemies have spoken with glee of our fall, all the while we collapsed theSoviet union, have reformed capitalism (is that ever really done and finished?) multiple times and helped to remove a dozen tyrants.

I can sleep with that.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 11:14 | Link to Comment Overfed
Overfed's picture

The thing I hate most about Statists is that they believe rights are granted by the government.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:27 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

sadly, that reset would be blamed on libertarians. I can hear it now. "See, we tried it the free market way, and look what happened."

The rest of the current horseshit is the two parties attempting to NOT be the party in charge when the S hits the F

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:42 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Ron/Don Paul/Quixote... we riberterains Rove you Wrong time. ;-)

You speak soothe of things that go bump in the political dark. Your flashlight is weak and your voice is a squeak, but we rove you anyways.

Your Son/Sun? Him that sold out? With thine blessing? We forgive. We forget. 30 years your weak flashlight has shone weakly in dark and dank corners as you and Dennis "Never enough" Kucinich tabled un-winnable bills. 

You must be tired. Is that why you re-tired? 

One last Masonic hand-shake for your faithful, a wave from the daughters of the eastern star.

Dr. Ron/Don Paul Quixote.

You are legend....but it's tilting...

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:54 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I've been meaning to ask you -- in what region of Ohio did you set up your teepee?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:09 | Link to Comment Taffy Lewis
Taffy Lewis's picture

CrockettAlmanac, let me guess: Kulkata, Ohio. It's so laid back that cows hang out in the middle of the road :-)

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:53 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Haha...... about 10,000 miles off.

I live in India. Spent 12 years in your fine country. Know a little bit about how it works there.

Love the people, hate what USA (controllers) stand for.

;-)

ori

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:37 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

And here I thought you were proudly proclaiming your Wyandot heritage.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 00:58 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Well, where do rights come from Mr.Cole?

Are they a gift? If so from whom or what? At what price?

Are they something bestowed upon the masses by government only to then be taken away by the all knowing elitists controlling it, at that single point in time?

In truth...you are, in fact, born with them...only force can restrict them. The upside is, they can never be taken away, only by the forfeiture of your life, then they won't be much use to you ;-)

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:03 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

"In truth...you are, in fact, born with them..."

Meaningless statement. 

Depending on where you are born, to whom and in what health - your mileage will vary greatly. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:13 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

You make the mistake of believing that rights come from someone else rather than being innate. Simply because someone violates your rights does not mean that you no longer have those rights. Would you suggest that a slave has no right to freedom because someone else claims to own him? The slave who realizes he has a right to freedom despite the presence of his chains has a chance at obtaining actual freedom. The slave who believes that he is owned will remain owned.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:25 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

So elegantly simple.  Simple-minded, that is.  Spoken like a true believer of the Rand.  So am I born with whatever rights I want?  If not, who is to define them?  Who is the arbiter of innate rights?  And don't go to your simple view of individual liberty.  Virtually every act of an individual affects others.  If I decide I have the right to burn toxic chemicals in my lawn and my neighbor dies as a result, whose right is paramount?  If I decide that I want to take target practice with a nuclear weapon because I have the right to bear arms, does it matter how many die when the nuke explodes?  What if I sincerely believe in my innate right to use nuclear weapons for target practice?  Careful now.  Don't tell me that you can define my rights, or I may think you a tyrant and start an Institute.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:35 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Why should we free the slaves? if we do, who will pick the fucking goddamed COTTON?!?!

Why does anybody else need to judge the innate rights of another? Why is the individual not equipped to judge for themselves?

You have the right to do whatever the fuck you please, with your own private property, so long as you do not initiate force against others. PER-I-FUCKING-OD. What the fuck is so difficult to comprehend here?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 07:34 | Link to Comment clymer
clymer's picture

careful Nanny - you know what they say about arguing with idiots

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:21 | Link to Comment Acet
Acet's picture

So in a sense you are agreeing with what LTER is saying: the size of your rights depends on who from and where you are born since the size and characteristings of your private property is very dependent on your starter conditions.

In your definition, those born slaves would remain slaves since they have no private property (hence no place to "do whatever the fuck you please") and cannot initiate force against others and thus must remain in their current condition.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:44 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

So am I born with whatever rights I want?

 

Of course not. I never said any such thing.

 

 If I decide I have the right to burn toxic chemicals in my lawn and my neighbor dies as a result, whose right is paramount?

 

As the anarcho-capialtists have pointed out time and again property rights are the basis for effective action against polluters. You have no right to pollute your neighbor's property, period.

 

If I decide that I want to take target practice with a nuclear weapon because I have the right to bear arms, does it matter how many die when the nuke explodes?

 

You have a right to use force only in matters of self defense and that force must be in proportion to the threat.

 

 Don't tell me that you can define my rights, or I may think you a tyrant and start an Institute.

 

I didn't say that I could define your rights. I said that the rights you have to your person and property are innate and that no person could give them to you or take them away. You criticized me for that specifically and now you're pretending that I hold the opposite view and you're criticizing me for that as well. Simply bizarre.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:06 | Link to Comment Stranded Observer
Stranded Observer's picture

The fact that you took the time to rebut LetThemEatRand's completely ridiculous comment here is commendable.  You are very good with children.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:47 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Your conceit bounds on buffoonery. What use to offer something valuable to a witling who does not know its value?

IOW: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine.” --
Matthew 7:6

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:25 | Link to Comment goat
goat's picture

Buffoonery - what an awesome word.  Thanks for sharing.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:37 | Link to Comment Offthebeach
Offthebeach's picture

"....burning in your yard, toxic..."

You do.

All chemical are and are not toxic. Even water, or oxygen or iron, let alone compounds.

Say burning car batteries. If you li e in Wyoming, who will complain? No one. If you are on a deck in the city, lots of fellow citizens complain.

I once asked the head of the Cambridge environmental consulting company , Gradient ,and MIT PhD, a question. " I live. On a ranch in Texas. I ha e oil wells pulling crude oil. I park my truck next to the oil well and pull the drain plug on the crank case and dump the oil on the ground. Am I polluting?"
He said don't ask him questions like that. That pollution was not a scientific term. It was a political term. A social term that varies from. Group to group. By fashion and whim and money. He said no, dumping was not pollution from a chemical view, unless politically it was.

That's why burning your plastic bottles on your grill MIGHT be pollution, and the municipal incinerator burning hundreds of tons a day of batteries, mercury, chlorine gas isn't polluting.
But neither is an pure is or is not state. Unless you are alone in what Locke and others described as a natural rights state.

Aside.
I can't stand people who say the don't put chemicals in their body( usually females ) .
The think that drinking water isn't chemicals. Its just plain pure water. I've really enjoyed the ' I don't drink dirty tap water' and now their g-strings are in a bunch with plastic bottle compounds migrating into their yuppie water. I tell them they should get their water like their precious animal shows. Lap it up out of a ditch puddle.
Thanks to leftists and gooberment pubic edjamakation, it's easier to inform someone with no schooling then fight your way through the modern popular constructs. Sort of like you can't fix stupid, now you can't fix certified educated.

All states, energy, chemical are in motion. All the time. Our political status is loading up, assembling, falsehoods. Scientific, social, and economics. So far the load bearing elements have held except pre-Federal Reserve cities, although they are recycled as free range, voluntary reservations for non productive,, priced out labor, having only to trade votes for food, and maybe a job as a minder.

...

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 11:25 | Link to Comment Overfed
Overfed's picture

Yeah. You need your beloved, benevolent State to define your rights, pay your medical bills, give you permission to partake in daily activities, wipe yer ass and tell you how to live. And you grovel down and thank them for it. Sick.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:22 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

"Simply because someone violates your rights does not mean that you no longer have those rights."

Yes it does mean I no longer have those rights. 

"The slave who realizes he has a right to freedom despite the presence of his chains has a chance at obtaining actual freedom. The slave who believes that he is owned will remain owned."

Ridiculous. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:36 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

No greater slave than one who believes himself free. Perhaps said realization leads to said slave attempting to claims his right to his own property?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:45 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

"Simply because someone violates your rights does not mean that you no longer have those rights."

Yes it does mean I no longer have those rights.

 

So, for example, a rape victim has no right not to be raped in your opinion?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:54 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

"in your opinion?"

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:57 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Well I wasn't asking for your Aunt Shirley's opinion. Care to respond to the query?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:04 | Link to Comment Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Stop calling her Shirley...can't you see the 12 Monkeys reference in his/her name?  James Cole is the Bruce Willis character.  But, back to the rape.  Do tell, James.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:11 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

well, the "rape victim" should lose all her rights to make a decision about her body - specifically, her womb - if that sly rapist's sperm makes a zygote.

Sanctity of Life dudes, it's the baton passed to Paul Ryan, and the next generation Conservative Republicans.  and oh, fools that they are, they're still running with it!

but it's okay, it's libertarian and all, yeah.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:20 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I didn't say that. I didn't hear anyone say that.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:49 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

excellent, disingenuous dodge.

consistent, I expect no less.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:01 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

If you have an accusation to make then make it. What benefit do you find in railing against things that no one ever said?

If that's the way it works then I accuse you of wanting to kill all the men on planet Earth. You never said that, so it must be true by your own standard.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:10 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

nah dude, we've had this exchange, repeatedly,  for a year now, just downvote me and get back to your storytelling. . .

I was just inserting a little truth into the myth-making going down, post voter-time, y'know.

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:36 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

If what you posted was the truth then why do you find it impossible to document that which you claim I said?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:03 | Link to Comment Cast Iron Skillet
Cast Iron Skillet's picture

that isn't Libertarian, it's Religious Right bs. Incidentally, such attitudes propagated by the religious right are why I could never vote for Romney/Ryan or most of the other current Republican leaders.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:45 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

yeah, that's always been the part I get stuck on, the Libertarian putting forth the Sanctity of Life Bill proposals every other year. . . I mean, I know these CongressCritters play volleyball with these bills - like the Weather Modification ones K.Bailey Hutchison and her pal Olympia Snow take turns pushing around.

so they just keep those bills "alive" and add bits of different wordage over time. . . pretty fascinating to see how they grow their agenda. . .

and Ron Paul's volleyball was Sanctity of Life, he keep that one alive for years,

The Sanctity of Life Act was a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) on July 20, 1995, and cosponsored by Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY). It was reintroduced with similar text by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress,[1] 110th United States Congress,[2][3] 111th United States Congress,[4] and the 112th United States Congress.[5] The repeatedly introduced bill sparked advocacy from pro-life activists and opposition from pro-choice activists.[6]

and of course, the Rand son will continue the legacy, but meanwhile, so did the other "Paul" - Paul Ryan, who added some more interesting clawbacks - well, hell, of course - we're talking gov't here, that's what they do, they make LAWS, right?  so Paul Ryan's version, that's a hoot, I'll let you decide through your own web-search who might be the most accurate in their interpretations, but one thing for sure, it's yet another step in the direction of controlling a women's womb, the rights to make decisions about her own body, trumped by the State.  Ryan's floating enforced pregnancy even in case of rape and incest, we'll see how much shit that stirs up, over time.

it's how these politicians work though, stealth, lies, pretense, false labels, misdirection - they keep their agenda alive over time, manipulating the media until it seems a natural thing to acquiesce to, this loss of sovereignty - and for women, body sovereignty.

apparently it all got rollin' with the RayGun!

"Far from being extreme, Congressman Ryan has picked up the mantle of President Ronald Reagan in his support for a congressional declaration of personhood," commented Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D.  "We are hopeful that as Ronald Reagan did before him, Congressman Ryan will use his position of influence to advocate uncompromisingly for the dignity and full legal personhood of the preborn."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/romney-vp-pick-supports-personho...

so yeah, all the Conservative Repubs keeping that bill alive, just doing their part for the system that works against the people.  over time.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 09:50 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

If life isn't sacred, what is?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:43 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

if life is sacred, you could start with the life lived by the woman, and measure it against the minutes of existence,  completely dependent on the LIFE of the woman, that you desire to award the zygote.  it's illogical to argue UNLESS the argument acknowledges the DESIRE for STATE CONTROL over  female reproductive freedom. 

end of.

all the lofty verbiage you spew and the labels you string together to describe your beliefs mean nothing when it gets broken down into actual beliefs - then you and your fans are exposed for the tiny minded control freaks you are in your hearts. "anarcho-capitalist atheist pro-lifer" - did I get them all in?  any others like a caveat for their particular "libertarian" flavour?  echo chamber of upvoting lacking in critical thinking, all for the sake of wearing the "don't blame me, I VOTED for _______" bumper sticker - clue:  it's the "voting" part that's the tell. . .

if life is sacred, and you desire to enforce pregnancy to live birth - WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?  will you continue your sacred role as protector to provider for the forced birth?  or go back to the "fuck the baby mamas and their brats" that is a frequent moan here?  who will provide for all these unwanted babies, and what kind of CULTURE do you suppose you'll end up with? 

*crickets*

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 18:31 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

That wasn't crickets. It was the chronic tinnitus that stops you from hearing me when I say that I don't favor any laws regulating reproduction. Do you find it impossible to respect life at the same time that you avoid using violence against others? I don't -- for me the two go hand in hand.

Why does the mere suggestion that life is not a bad thing upset you?

 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 23:10 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

thanks for including the necessary passive aggressive questions - your posts aren't the same without them.

it was you that self-identified as a pro-lifer, and you that advocated voting for RP, the Sanctity of Life bill promoter.

life's swell.  laters.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 23:27 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

You think you're so clever but you have no idea what Ron Paul's opinion is regarding the rights of mothers v. the rights of zygotes.

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I don't give a fuck about "Ron Paul's opinions" - I'm addressing his agenda, and his role in the Repubs agenda dude, and your cheerleading of it - all of you cheerleaders who either don't bother to look into the whole picture before you do your "voting" game thing - address the topic, or dance around it like you've done for the past year - what is this, round eleventy??

I'm done, so get yer famous last words in.  you have NO ARGUMENT, as usual, just the avoidance of a captured mind that only runs within the circles that don't cause it any deeper thought.

you're a proud voter.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 11:27 | Link to Comment Overfed
Overfed's picture

That's a pretty fuckin' far stretch from Libertarianism, dude.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:42 | Link to Comment Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Jim, Hello, the James Cole posting here on ZH is not me, i.e. the James Cole from Mish's board. Or the Jack Burton here on ZH. All my posts here and elsewhere will have the picture of Scarlett Johansson.

I have seen the ZH James Cole from time to time he posts like this James_Cole, I am always James Cole.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:09 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

My point was simply that you're asking what my opinion is, you and I will likely share many of the same opinions on a variety of rights becase we live in similar societies.

We will also likely differ on some of those opinions.

In other societies they will have radically different views of rights. 

God / religion is an idea people commonly use to impose their particular view of rights on a population. Tyrannical governments operate in the same way. 

This is why when someone says certain rights come from God I have a problem with it because they've moved from something we can debate to something that is absolute.

Second to that it is used to suggest that if someone isn't able excerise those rights it is God's domain to worry about. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:25 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I'm an atheist. But I care little about whether an person believes that the right of the individual to life and property come from Nature or from Nature's God. The important thing is that the individual acknowledges that such rights exist and are not determined by those who would do others wrong but by virtue of simply being human.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:21 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Well said.  Certain basic rights like life, liberty and property are inalienable by virtue of simply being human.  I agree you can be an atheist and live by a moral code, but you're not born with it.  Traditional moral codes can easily be replaced by feel good, feels right as long as I don't hurt anyone flexible morals that don't allow a person to truly develop virtue.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:09 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

"Certain basic rights like life, liberty and property are inalienable by virtue of simply being human."

This is of course entirely relative.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 04:32 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I was talking about basic human rights that your Govt. cannot take away from you (I you live free).  Not some individual person on person violation.  Because those rights are inalienable to your basic humanity, you have the right to defend yourself against such tyranny.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:54 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

do you automatically lose your rights if a zygote trumps them?

absolutely serious question.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 18:33 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Of course not. Just ask Ron Paul.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 23:14 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

hahahhhahahhh, nice one - you ask first, k?

I'm beginning to understand the Paul supporter's blind-spot now.

it's a voting thing, *nods*

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 23:29 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

You're clueless. A knowledge of the facts would serve you better than ebullient stupidity. I won't provide those easily available facts because you're not the least bit interested in them. And the phrase "more's the pity" does not apply here due to the intractable character of the party being addressed.

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 14:29 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

ooooh, clever passive aggressive strikes again!

I'm clueless, don't know the "facts" that you are privileged to, but you won't provide those precious facts as a backup to your opinions, or to justify your attacks.

you are so hilarious.

you're a committed voter!

Sat, 11/10/2012 - 16:29 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

fancy voicing your opinion downvoter?

or will you be a true voter, anonymous, no need to defend your reality. . .

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 07:35 | Link to Comment clymer
clymer's picture

James, i'm beginning to think you don't sleep. Are you a bot?

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:42 | Link to Comment Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Our civilization has been built by a society that asserts innate rights, and will defend that assertion.  It is so because it is right, and it is right because it makes more sense and results in a more successful society. 

Rather like the 'belief' that two and two makes four, or that we stop on red.  Go ahead and flout those as well if you wish.  Just don't be too surprised when you end up a mess on the pavement.

Please start with Daniel Dennett, for instance 'Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting' and then get back to us.  Bonus question:  If God isn't necessary for innate rights, what good is He?

Nihilism and relativism are in the end feeble minded groping, like making gutteral sounds while pretending to orate.

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 01:49 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Jim, I dis-agree. 

Enlightened nihilism is the very Bedrock of some of the greatest spiritual systems in Existence.

Zen as prime example, it's parent Buddhism as another. hinduism in antiquity (not the current bastardized version of it) also.

And what is life if not CONSTANT relativism? Duality is relative. All else flows from there.

ori

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:01 | Link to Comment Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

I do not find compassion for all sentient beings to be nihilistic.  But it is worth considering how a strong system of ethics could be built on a nihilistic foundation.  In fact that is one way to look at Dennett, he makes an argument that attempts to do away with the 'sky hook' element of religion while maintaining a full set of rights and social conventions, based on a sort of evolutionary argument.  Personally as an ordained deacon I can see it a couple of different ways, I think Christianity provides a solid foundation but it's not the only way to fly.

We just have a large population of 'college kid' wankers over here.  So there is a provincial context to this exchange.

The global perspective is much appreciated.

One could say that a proper discussion of rights among all the great civilizations is sorely lacking or as Ghandi is said to have said, when asked about Western civilization, "I think it would be a very good idea."

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 03:04 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

I hear you Jim. And I also know you get it.

Plus, I was speaking of the "bedrock" of said spiritual/religious paths.

And what you said in the end, that great discussion....perhaps that should have been the starting point of Globalization, eh? Given that all strife comes from varying perceptions of the re-finitions of basic things like right and wrong, morality (which is HIGHLY local and personal....

Said provincialism and con-text should be the basis of all global inter-change.

Yes, an enlightened discussion such as that would have got us all off on the right foot.

But here we are.

Falling...on a blade to boot....collectively at that.

ori

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 02:49 | Link to Comment Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

We are born into this world with one inalienable right...from God.  Free will, to chose righteousness or wickedness in our self.  Each person is born into different circumstances, some as rulers, some as slaves.  But most of use spend our lives laboring under some kind of oppression or sickness, heartbreak or poverty.  But we always possess the right to chose our response to said conditions....other rights come and go. 

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 08:38 | Link to Comment Iocosus
Iocosus's picture

But we always possess the right to chose our response to said conditions

 

This was the message of Viktor Frankel's book, Man's Search for Meaning

Fri, 11/09/2012 - 12:20 | Link to Comment Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

i'll check it out.  It is the fundamental message of Christian writer Dostoevsky, also.  

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!