Ron Paul For President

Status
Not open for further replies.
LazyHippy said:
I referred to the declaration of independence in reply to a statement that the US was founded on capitalism. Please, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the 5th amendment to your constitution was part of the basis for founding the United States.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights (which includes amendment 5) was what allowed the Constitution to be ratified. If it wasn't there, we couldn't have got 3/4ths of the states to ratify the Constitution.

By the way, I think most people understand, but by 'free health care', I mean free at the point of service. Doctors obviously have choices, some chose to work for private companies, yet many chose to work in 'socialised' health care systems.
Click to expand...
They didn't in Canada until very recently...

Also, how can a socialized and a free system co-exist? You either pay for your own health care or you don't pay for your own health care.

If I want to use the free system, I still have to pay for the socialized system. Anyone who wants to use the free system pays twice.

If you propose that we make the socialized system similar to the way medical insurance works (pooling money, and not forcing those who don't want to join the pool to pay into it) why do we need the government at all? Wouldn't we have this system in a completely free society? People could get together and agree to pool a certain amount of their money to pay for health care costs?

I think what this is really about is forcing a few wealthy members of society to pay huge sums of money so others who aren't as wealthy can use it for health care. In a free society, where the rich gave this money of their own accord, it would be called charity. If you believe the people would do it by choice in a free society, there's no need for government. If you don't believe they would, than the government is being used as a tool to steal from one group (the rich) and give to another group. (This is a violation of the Constitution... the equal protection clause, the takings clause, and probably more than aren't on the top of my mind right now.)

What surprises me is so many people accept that taking from the rich is perfectly OK.

Imagine yourself at a playground with your children. They only have a few toys, just like the majority of the children there. However, one child shows up with lots and lots of toys. If your children stole some of his toys, I wouldn't think you'd find that acceptable. If instead of direct theft, your children got together with the other kids and formed a "government" - and then told the kid with lots of toys to either leave, give up some of his toys, or face the group beating him up, I imagine you would be sickened.
 


This 'free society' you describe sounds like anarchy - literally and figuratively. Human nature being what it is it wouldn't work.

The problem with your arguments is that governments already do take billions from their people and spend it on many things which many people disagree with. This is for the most part unavoidable and where we need to ensure our elected (or appointed) representatives are serving our best interests. I am not arguing for higher taxation, but for prioritisation of spending to benefit the many, as opposed to the few.

Take aid to businesses - say agricultural subsides for example - surely I should be able to decide whether I want to donate part of my income to aiding farmers, not let the government 'steal' it from me and give it to them? The same logic you are applying to the health care issue can be applied to almost any aspect of governance.

Governments will always redistribute wealth in some way, shape or form. The question is is it preferable to direct this money to Halliburton, Enron and BAe shareholders or to the poorer members of our societies?
 
Reading more and more about Ron Paul...it looks like he's the best the Republicans have at the presidency.....which is why as a democrat, I sure hope Giuliani wins the nomination...hehe.:laughing-smiley-007

No, but for real, if the religious right continues to shoot the party in the foot, sadly,canidates like Mr. Paul don't stand a chance.
 
turbolapp said:
Reading more and more about Ron Paul...it looks like he's the best the Republicans have at the presidency.....which is why as a democrat, I sure hope Giuliani wins the nomination...hehe.:laughing-smiley-007

No, but for real, if the religious right continues to shoot the party in the foot, sadly,canidates like Mr. Paul don't stand a chance.
Click to expand...

SOoooo TRUE. Living in texas kinda sucks in the sense that it will probably be a republican majority here. I'm still gonna vote democrat regardless though.
 
mason said:
SOoooo TRUE. Living in texas kinda sucks in the sense that it will probably be a republican majority here. I'm still gonna vote democrat regardless though.
Click to expand...

mason-I'm in Texas as well.. Woo Hoo we now have a total of 2 democrats voting in Texas!
 
Ron Paul finished 3rd in the Illinois straw poll.

1. Mitt Romney – 40.35%
2. Fred Thompson – 19.96%
3. Ron Paul – 18.87%
4. Rudy Giuliani – 11.61%
5. John McCain – 4.12%
6. Mike Huckabee – 3.04%
7. Sam Brownback – 1.08%
8. Duncan Hunter - .65%
9. Tom Tancrado - .33%
Detail

Those numbers look promising.
 
Anyone in alabama or texas right now needs to go vote for him in their straw polls in the next couple days.
 
LazyHippy said:
This 'free society' you describe sounds like anarchy - literally and figuratively. Human nature being what it is it wouldn't work.

The problem with your arguments is that governments already do take billions from their people and spend it on many things which many people disagree with. This is for the most part unavoidable and where we need to ensure our elected (or appointed) representatives are serving our best interests. I am not arguing for higher taxation, but for prioritisation of spending to benefit the many, as opposed to the few.

Take aid to businesses - say agricultural subsides for example - surely I should be able to decide whether I want to donate part of my income to aiding farmers, not let the government 'steal' it from me and give it to them? The same logic you are applying to the health care issue can be applied to almost any aspect of governance.

Governments will always redistribute wealth in some way, shape or form. The question is is it preferable to direct this money to Halliburton, Enron and BAe shareholders or to the poorer members of our societies?
Click to expand...

It's preferable to do NEITHER. A large company is no more deserving of stolen goods than someone dying of cancer. Lower taxes and let the people keep the money.
The "free society" I am advocating is not anarchy. It is exactly the sort of society we would have if we followed the US Constitution.

I know the same logic I am applying to health care can be applied to farm subsidies, helping out big business, etc. In fact, it can be applied to any form of welfare. I know this. I am AGAINST farm subsidies and the government helping big business. I am against all government spending, programs, and behaviors that are not outlined in the Constitution.

surely I should be able to decide whether I want to donate part of my income to aiding farmers,
Click to expand...
Yes, you should. No one should decide for you.

I should I also be able to decide whether I want to donate part of my income to aiding motorcycle accident victims. No one should decide for me.
 
"The problem with your arguments is that governments already do take billions from their people and spend it on many things which many people disagree with. This is for the most part unavoidable..."

This is a scam. Governments got away with it for 2 reasons:

1. The threat of conflict. The Soviet Union and the Western World tensions created a stronger desire for security than freedom.

2. Governments around the world have people fooled with their voodoo economics. Taking money from the people, pissing away most of it, then giving some back is bullshit... But they manage to get a LOT of press on the giving back part. The pissed away part just isn't covered as much.

Theft is wrong. This massive scam creates misery and poverty. I think it's unavoidable that people will wake up and toss those smug bastards on their asses. Just a matter of time.
 
$5 Submissions said:
Ron Paul is awesome. I wish his libertarian economic philosophy makes it here in the Third World. The only way out of systemic poverty is to allow INDIVIDUAL initiative.
Click to expand...

Yup - exactly. Most of the liberal-socialist empires of the world were built by free societies in the beginning. Lack of bureaucracies and zero/low taxes allowed these empires to form. The bullshit socialist crap slows/stops growth.

Example: Hong Kong. A rock sticking out of the water with next to no natural resources became one of the wealthiest few square miles in the world. Built buy people escaping communism and starting in abject poverty -- it was intialy considered a humanitarian crisis. Left alone and not regulated, they build wealth.
 
Karnul said:
"The problem with your arguments is that governments already do take billions from their people and spend it on many things which many people disagree with. This is for the most part unavoidable..."

This is a scam. Governments got away with it for 2 reasons:

1. The threat of conflict. The Soviet Union and the Western World tensions created a stronger desire for security than freedom.
Click to expand...

So true. Just look what's happening with this 'war on terror' situation our governments have created.

Military spending is another great example of governments taking our money and spending in ways many many people disagree with - and the amounts involved are vastly more than healthcare or farming subsidies.

Would a true libertarian let me decide whether I want to (financially) support my countries troops or not? If I want to invade Iraq or keep peace in Darfur I should pay for it, right?
 
LazyHippy said:
So true. Just look what's happening with this 'war on terror' situation our governments have created.

Military spending is another great example of governments taking our money and spending in ways many many people disagree with - and the amounts involved are vastly more than healthcare or farming subsidies.

Would a true libertarian let me decide whether I want to (financially) support my countries troops or not? If I want to invade Iraq or keep peace in Darfur I should pay for it, right?
Click to expand...

Doooooon't go there! A "true Libertarian" is as hard to hunt down as a true Scotsman.
 
I was watching a video on youtube the nightbefore last and it had 2 college political advocates (dem and rep) talking about who they would like to be nominated. (Of course I can't locate it it at the moment) The rep said she wanted Ron Paul and the CNN people scoffed and pretty much dismissed her. It really annoyed me. I'm not in Ron Paul's camp but she was the only intelligent person in that clip. I thought local news was a joke, but I think that punchline went National. NPR is the only worthy new source I have faith in at the moment.
 
LazyHippy said:
So true. Just look what's happening with this 'war on terror' situation our governments have created.

Military spending is another great example of governments taking our money and spending in ways many many people disagree with - and the amounts involved are vastly more than healthcare or farming subsidies.

Would a true libertarian let me decide whether I want to (financially) support my countries troops or not? If I want to invade Iraq or keep peace in Darfur I should pay for it, right?
Click to expand...

The question is based on a false premise. Countries should mind their own business and stay out of foreign entanglements.

A true libertarian doesn't believe the government should be for hire. Everyone ought to be protected equally, and no one should be able to buy special treatment or favors from the government.
 
I like RP, he gets my vote. This is the first time I can vote! But people are going insane like little fan boys about him. There is a video on youtube of a girl stripping titled vote ron paul, with a million views. That is not helpful. On a forum I run a guy signed up to spam about Ron Paul. Give me a break. Support him, but don't make him that guy with the fanatic supporters that shove his ideas down your throat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom