Is Ron Paul as dangerous as Bidinotto claims?

[sjw]

I see. Even if foreign affairs can lead to the destruction of our own interests? <snip>

Your understanding hinges on your notion of "our own interests". E.g., "we" (note the collectivism) have an "interest" in oil. Does that mean "we" have a right to tax the American people to wage war against primitives in an attempt to get them to respect the property rights of businessmen?

I think the notion of "our own interests" as it exists in your head is dangerous and confused.

I'm not sure I understand the comment we send guns and tanks and not our judicial system? I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of that,

It's a strange state, not knowing whether you understand. "Maybe I understand. I'm not sure." Huh?

I think you don't so I'll clarify. Think of the reason for the three branches of government. Think of the notion that we're helping defend individual rights--with only one of those branches. Would that work at home? Could we defend individual rights only using the military? The people over there have no chance of appeal to our courts. How can that possibly permit justice to prevail for them?

Shayne

[Johnny]

What difference does that make?

I'm just trying to understand your context.

By asking an irrelevant question about my age? That makes no sense. You can either address my arguments and offer a rebuttal, or concede they are right. But meaningless questions into how old I am offers no value to this thread.

And now you don't mean to be insulting but a few posts prior you call me a knucklehead?

I didn't mean to be insulting by my question, but I meant the other insult. Amazing that it didn't occur to you that I couldn't mean both. Youth can't account for that oversight, maybe you're just plain stupid.

So now context doesn't matter. Your individual posts are to be taken as a vacuum, without regard to anything you said before. I'm supposed to believe after already insulting me you now have this change of heart and ask an irrelevant question about my age as not meaning to be an insult? Are you serious? Perhaps if you first apologized for calling me a knucklehead and then went on to say you don't mean to insult me by asking me how old I am, then I might concede you are being sincere in saying you don't mean to insult me, but even then I wouldn't grant you that as the implication of that question is an insult to me. Since you made no effort to apologize, and the question of my age itself can only be construed to denigrate me rather than address my argument, and that you continue to insult me, I can only come to the conclusion you are a liar.

Now you're an outright liar

Assuming you are young as I'm guessing, the question is: Will your errors cause you to think deeply, or will you just carry on?

Is this an argument? I can see matus' frustrations. Once you realize your arguments are untenable, you resort to childish insults and evasion. I'll give you one last chance to offer something of value, if you choose not to I see no point in entertaining your childish outbursts.

[sjw]

By asking an irrelevant question about my age? That makes no sense. You can either address my arguments and offer a rebuttal, or concede they are right. But meaningless questions into how old I am offers no value to this thread.

I'd make a different argument if you were 20 than if you were 40. Actually if you were 40 I wouldn't bother. Or is it your position that you're born knowing everything? If so, you must be a teenager.

The fact is, I'm just respecting the hierarchy of knowledge, and taking into account usual rates of learning that hierarchy given my experience. You should know about hierarchies, you're an Objectivist who's read everything, right?

I didn't mean to be insulting by my question, but I meant the other insult. Amazing that it didn't occur to you that I couldn't mean both. Youth can't account for that oversight, maybe you're just plain stupid.

So now context doesn't matter.

No, now you're just assuming a stupid things about what I meant.

Assuming you are young as I'm guessing, the question is: Will your errors cause you to think deeply, or will you just carry on?

Is this an argument? I can see matus' frustrations. Once you realize your arguments are untenable, you resort to childish insults and evasion. I'll give you one last chance to offer something of value, if you choose not to I see no point in entertaining your childish outbursts.

If you want to walk away now, saying nothing else I'd compliment you for being one step better than Matus. Of course, that's not really a compliment.

[Johnny]

I see. Even if foreign affairs can lead to the destruction of our own interests? <snip>

Your understanding hinges on your notion of "our own interests". E.g., "we" (note the collectivism) have an "interest" in oil. Does that mean "we" have a right to tax the American people to wage war against primitives in an attempt to get them to respect the property rights of businessmen?

This is a non-sequiter. Compulsory taxes are used to lock up criminals in our own country too, but I don't see Ron Paul or yourself advocating we should let prisoners go free. While compulsory taxation is wrong, locking up criminals is not wrong. In order for you to be logically consistent, you should advocate the government not only stop any wars against foreign nations that threaten our interests, but also they stop locking up rapists as well. We unfortunately do not live in a Platonic ideal of a totally free society, since we don't, it's absurd to say we can't make any kind of value comparisons between different kinds of bad acts. While compulsory taxation is bad, using it to lock up criminals is not. We can walk and chew gum at the same time and advocate the military be used to defend our interests and advocate our government and military be funded through voluntary funding as well. There need not be any conflict between defense and voluntary taxation.

I'm not sure I understand the comment we send guns and tanks and not our judicial system? I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of that,

Think of the reason for the three branches of government. Think of the notion that we're helping defend individual rights--with only one of those branches. Would that work at home? Could we defend individual rights only using the military? The people over there have no chance of appeal to our courts. How can that possibly permit justice to prevail for them?

Shayne

So you're saying unless the United States establishes a three branched government in Iraq exactly like our own, the military toppling Saddam Hussein offered no justice to the Iraqis? Or are you saying because the military is directed by one branch of government, they can't possibly be used in the interests of the American people or the Iraqis? I'm sorry I would have to disagree. The military can offer justice to the Iraqis by removing a tyrant, and it is just for the government to use the military to defend our interests from threats abroad. Unless you think the military can never be used justly unless all three branches of government are directly controlling their actions? But the alternative here you suggest (oddly you seem to all of a sudden care about justice for Iraqis?) is to let the Iraqis continue living under Saddam Hussein, which offers no hope for justice for them at all. So how could you even care about justice for the Iraqis? You were content on letting them be subjected to Saddam Hussein's rape rooms and summary executions.

[Johnny]

By asking an irrelevant question about my age? That makes no sense. You can either address my arguments and offer a rebuttal, or concede they are right. But meaningless questions into how old I am offers no value to this thread.

I'd make a different argument if you were 20 than if you were 40. Actually if you were 40 I wouldn't bother.

Well first off you contradicted yourself, if I was 40 you would either make a different argument or none, you can't do both so obviously you are confused, so at least you can try to not contradict yourself, but secondly, you're saying your argument would be different depending upon my age. Which implies you are actually a relativist since you would offer two different arguments instead of one correct argument.

And to go back to something you said earlier:

Your understanding hinges on your notion of "our own interests". E.g., "we" (note the collectivism) have an "interest" in oil. Does that mean "we" have a right to tax the American people to wage war against primitives in an attempt to get them to respect the property rights of businessmen?

Of course as I said before compulsory taxation is not just, but apparently you are not aware of this thing called an "automobile", perhaps you've heard of it? It uses this fuel called "gasoline" which is refined from something called "oil". I'm not aware of any American that doesn't use transportation, so the implication here this only serves the interests of businessmen is rather silly. But even more silly is the implication as long as there is a few souls left in a nation left untouched by the actions of a foreign tyrant while others are hurt, it is not just for a nation's military to be used to defend those individual's interests. By that same token why bother locking up criminals out of South Central Los Angeles if those criminals didn't steal or rob from someone living in Hollywood? The answer, it serves everyone's long term self-interest to enter into an alliance of defense with one another, especially with trading partners. There is a harmony of interests amongst men to enter into mutual trade agreements regarding defense. While a resident of Hollywood today may not suffer from the acts of a criminal out of South Central Los Angles in the immediate short-term future, not acting to put that criminal away threatens the long term safety of that Hollywood resident by both being subject to a possible future crime from South Central Los Angeles criminals and having trading partners being threatened that reside in South Central Los Angeles.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Johnny

[Dragonfly]

I no longer see the difference between OL and Solo.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Dragonfly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I no longer see the difference between OL and Solo.

Dragonfly,

At least in this thread. If it continues in this vein, I will shut it down.

Michael

[sjw]

, but secondly, you're saying your argument would be different depending upon my age. Which implies you are actually a relativist since you would offer two different arguments instead of one correct argument.

Johnny and Matus is one in the same guy, isn't he?

[sjw]

I no longer see the difference between OL and Solo.

Dragonfly,

At least in this thread. If it continues in this vein, I will shut it down.

Michael

I think Johnny is Matus' alter-ego and both accounts should be shut down. Sorry for the mess, I'm done playing with the trolls.

[Johnny]

I'd like to point out I did not once use personal insults against Shayne yet rather than respond to my arguments, he retorts with childish name calling like "knucklehead", called me "stupid" and then wanted to know my age before addressing my arguments, stating he would offer different arguments based on such an irrelevancy as if to imply there are equally valid competing arguments as a rebuttal to mine, and has the audacity to label matus a relativist despite this obvious hypocrisy. It is rather disappointing to see in a pathetic attempt to save face, he now attempts to spin this as making himself look like a victim by labeling me a troll. Add that to the list of meaningless insults. Perhaps Shayne can act like a man and make a coherent argument but considering his penchant for schoolyard taunts I guess I'm asking for too much. I'm shocked he would be considered as a foremost expert on Objectivism but I would have to agree with you MSK his social skills are definitely lacking. This is no longer worth my time and as a self-respecting individual I see no reason to indulge in Shayne's potty mouth antics. Good day

Edited January 10, 2008 by Johnny

[Chris Grieb]

Did anyone else notice how badly Ron Paul did last night?

Do any of the Ron Paul supporters on OL have any comment on the New Republic report? The article that has all these anti-black and anti-semitic quotes from the Ron Paul Report.

Ron Paul addressed that smear article on his site. Vodkapundit also addressed it and properly identified it as an unjust smear, published at just the right time to hurt Ron Paul most.

SJW; I noticed you didn't have any comment on the actual election results.

I have looked at Vodkapundit article and my opinion is lower of the New Republic article. I thought when the Ron Paul boom began that something like this would occur.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Matus1976]

No, that he wants something that makes no sense was my point. ... To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people

No, to be precise, you said I wanted to 'force other people to value what I value' and THEN rephrased that to say I wanted to 'force other people to be free', THEN you later tried to claim that indeed it doesnt make sense (only after I harrassed you about the definition of freedom) to force other people to be free, and you were just saying I wanted to do something not logically possible. But 'forcing others to value what I value' IS logically possible, and so it's simplified reprhasing you offered in the next post was also of the logically possible variety (which had to have been based on your twisted definition of freedom, which you still havent offered)

[Matus1976]

Then he accidentally turned too many pages and skipped over every meaningful discussion of freedom in Objectivist literature.

This is the only alternative you can come up with for what has happened so far? That I don't understand Objectivism/freedom? Truly and honestly? You are certain of this? Now's not the time for hyperbole, answer carefully and precisely: Are you certain that my understanding of Objectivism/freedom/individual rights is as weak/wrong-headed as you have been claiming?

No, I told you over and over again what I think happened, originally you had a loosely defined idea of freedom, by which it made logical sense for you to accuse me of 'forcing' that kind of freedom on someone, which to you meant the same thing as "forcing others to value what I value" (you said this explicitly) as the discussion progressed you realized your definition was not thought out clearly and that indeed it is not logically possible to force freedom on someone, then you tried to evade the fact that you never had a decent definition in the first place by just trying to accuse me of trying to do something not logically possible, yet you've never shown how my idea of freedom is even remotely compatable with 'forcing' it on someone, and from the very first responses by me I clearly defined freedom, and asked over and over again for you to.

[Matus1976]

To be precise, I drew the implication that Matus in effect wanted to force freedom on people.

Why did you draw that implication? What did matus say to make you think that he was implying a contradiction? Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people?

Why did you ignore my questions to you?

You have ignored almost every question I've asked you, primarily

What is your definition of freedom?

But also, lets throw some questions you've asked right back at you.

Have you ever started a business?

Have you ever tried to do anything of significance?

How old are you?

Also, I am still waiting for that logical proof that I want to 'force others to be free'

[Matus1976]

You can't possibly want to do something that is illogical.

Well that is really an incredible statement. I doubt even Matus agrees.

I think that statement would have been better said with "not logically possible" instead of "illogical" which is perhaps what Johnny meant?

[Matus1976]

The context of the conversation. He said "I extend that courtesy" in answer to me saying our government (and remember that the nature of government is its use of force to accomplish ends) should not be inserting itself in the middle of foreign affairs.

Ahaha! Finally! Some of those great and powerfull arguments you've been alluding too. Well, an attempt at one anyway.

Actually, what you said was

"There is no reason for a freedom lover not to wholeheartedly support Ron Paul."

and that is what I responded to with

As a "Freedom Lover" I love freedom so much that I extend that same basic courtesy to all people of the world. Paul, like most libertarians, couldnt give a shit about freedom as a philosophical principle, only as something pragmatic that he and a few others adopt and get to enjoy. His Foreign policy (which consists of having no policy) is idiotic

You do realize these things are permanently recorded here, don't you? So no, you werent talking about the government inserting itself into foriegn affairs, you were making the bold proclaimation that every single lover of freedom should whole heartedly support Ron Paul. Of course, by your definition of freedom, which could be 'forced' on people, that's possibly true, but you've yet to share your definition. But I doubt lovers of freedom living in Burma, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanastan, Vietnam, North Korea, China, Laos, etc, really would wholeheartedly support Ron Pauls official "sucks to be you" position regarding them.

And keep in mind, we send over guns and tanks, not the judicial system. There's no attempt to uphold individual rights there, there's just throwing our weight around. (Good thing the metaphor policeman left the forum...)

As, so if we did box up our judges and courts and send them over to Iraq, we would be helping them defend freedom? But not the material requirements to act in the physical world to defend their rights? Um humm, that makes sense. I'll be sure to have a judge and a copy of the constitution with me next time I am mugged, that'll stop em! You NEED FORCE to UPHOLD individual rights. For the record, are you an Anarcist Libertarian or a Minarchist?

Is holding a criminal or a tyrant accountable for his actions wanting to force freedom on people?

This is a confused question. I of course don't have a problem with holding a tyrant accountable for his actions against the American people--assuming those Americans are within our borders. I have a problem with using American lives/money to *pretend* to defend the world. Again, we send guns and tanks, not our judicial system.

So, if we sent our judicial system, you WOULD be OK with it?

Edited January 10, 2008 by Matus1976

[sjw]

Did anyone else notice how badly Ron Paul did last night?

Do any of the Ron Paul supporters on OL have any comment on the New Republic report? The article that has all these anti-black and anti-semitic quotes from the Ron Paul Report.

Ron Paul addressed that smear article on his site. Vodkapundit also addressed it and properly identified it as an unjust smear, published at just the right time to hurt Ron Paul most.

SJW; I noticed you didn't have any comment on the actual election results.

I have looked at Vodkapundit article and my opinion is lower of the New Republic article. I thought when the Ron Paul boom began that something like this would occur.

I don't know what "... lower of the NR article" means.

Anyway, I didn't comment on the results because I thought you were so wrong that I didn't see the point of arguing about it with you. Ron Paul is approaching 10%, which is a pretty huge number, implying a very significant movement. He beat Guliani in Iowa, and nearly tied him in New Hampshire. Given the radical nature of Ron Paul's ideas, I can't see how anyone can say that he did "badly". I think he's doing so well that he's got some people scared, which is almost certainly why he was kept out of the FOX debate, and why this smear article was released from the New Repbulic when it was. If it weren't for the injust actions of the media, he'd have likely gotten 3rd in NH.

Shayne

[sjw]

For the record, are you an Anarcist Libertarian or a Minarchist?

Neither. And I'm not a Libertarian.

[Matus1976]

Shayne,

I think the notion of "our own interests" as it exists in your head is dangerous and confused. See my post 87 to Martin about our long term rational self interests. You assessment of our "own interests" lacks the prefix "long term" and "rational"

I'm not sure I understand the comment we send guns and tanks and not our judicial system? I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of that,

It's a strange state, not knowing whether you understand. "Maybe I understand. I'm not sure." Huh?

Much like you and the concept of 'freedom'

I think you don't so I'll clarify. Think of the reason for the three branches of government. Think of the notion that we're helping defend individual rights--with only one of those branches. Would that work at home? Could we defend individual rights only using the military? The people over there have no chance of appeal to our courts. How can that possibly permit justice to prevail for them?

So, if we ship over all three branches of government, and the military to enforce and defend rights, then we would be helping individuals protect their freedoms? Hmm, well, we do kind of need our three branches of government here in this country, perhaps, I don't know, we HELP OTHER NATIONS, setup a similiar system? Or at least a system which progresses in THAT DIRECTION? Hmm, gee, that sounds kind of familiar, didn't we do that somewhere? Aren't we trying to do that somewhere now?

Flip your question around, could we defend individual rights at home WITHOUT the armed forces, or police? The executive, judicial, and legislative branches are useless without the tangible ability to act in the real world to defend freedoms and justice. This pretty clearly demonstrates why that establishing rule of law and defense of basic civil liberties, like a right to life, is the first and most important thing to do.

[Matus1976]

I'd make a different argument if you were 20 than if you were 40. Actually if you were 40 I wouldn't bother. Or is it your position that you're born knowing everything? If so, you must be a teenager.

Why don't you just make your arguments and stop asking question after question to determine how you'll formulate those arguments. For every post with an argument, you average 10 with obfuscations, vague insults, and red herrings.

Perhaps, Shayne you're just plain stupid, since you are always assuming a stupid things about what I meant.

Is this an argument? I can see matus' frustrations. Once you realize your arguments are untenable, you resort to childish insults and evasion. I'll give you one last chance to offer something of value, if you choose not to I see no point in entertaining your childish outbursts.

If you want to walk away now, saying nothing else I'd compliment you for being one step better than Matus. Of course, that's not really a compliment.

Interesting what you reveal here. Why would staying around and putting up with you be something worthy of compliment? Is that, perhaps, because you intentionally throw around things you KNOW are childish insults and vague evasions? What's that make you, for staying around and yapping? I'm trying to whiddle through all this nonsesical crap you spew (which you have essentially admitted to now) just so I can have a clearer understanding of the twisted conception of freedom which people like you hold. Your vague irrelevant insults and obfuscations and evasions are just noise, I don't base my sense of self esteem on what you think of me, so really the only reason you would resort to such immature tactics is because you base part of your self esteem on hurling insults. How old did you say you were?

[sjw]

(only after I harrassed you about the definition of freedom)

Maybe on some level you mean well but I have to say that harrassment is a really good word for what you've been doing in this thread.

I'm not going to get into any more of it with you. Presumption is my pet peeve in these sorts of discussions. Someone tells me that I think X, when I know I think Y, that pisses me off but I can get over it if it's a miscommunication. But then when I come right out and say that I don't think Y and they persist, or they then start telling me I think A, B, C, D, E and I don't, well this presumptuous person has crossed WAY over the line. My theory of certainty does not allow me to have any respect for such a person, I just have contempt for the mind that is so bad methodologically that it can make a stream of assertions that it holds as "certain" that I personally and directly know are absolutely false.

In my view this sort of person is a product of our public schools. In a better world, the pathology that could make someone feel certain while they utter a stream of assertions that bear no relation to reality would be detected and corrected before the child turned 16. Unfortunately this pathology is precisely what the public schools encourage, with their "everyone's opinion matters" and "self-esteem" propaganda.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

, but secondly, you're saying your argument would be different depending upon my age. Which implies you are actually a relativist since you would offer two different arguments instead of one correct argument.

Johnny and Matus is one in the same guy, isn't he?

Dragonfly is really just SJW's alter ego right?

MSK, a cursory review of this thread would reveal who has resorted, over and over again, to childish insults. Anytime my posts contain those, they are literal copies and paste's of exactly what SJW has said to me (in emphasis of the ridiculous waste of time such comments are) As I said previously for every 1 post SJW actually makes and argument or defines something, there are 10 of his full of evasions, name calling, grammatical nitpicking, etc. This thread would be a much more pleasent read if he simply answered questions and didnt pepetually resort to ad hominems.

[Matus1976]

For the record, are you an Anarcist Libertarian or a Minarchist?

Neither. And I'm not a Libertarian.

Well that is some progress, thanks for answering a simple question. As a Ron Paul supporter, it seemed reasonable to think you were a Libertarian. If not, what are you (if you can sum it up in a statement)? I agree with Ron Paul on almost everything, but absolutely not on foreign policy.

[sjw]

Interesting what you reveal here. Why would staying around and putting up with you be something worthy of compliment?

Actually it's interesting what *you* reveal here, because you're doing exactly what I just accused you of. What I was thinking is that he'd be one step better for leaving because refraining from making stupid remarks would make him one step better than someone who spews them out every 5 minutes. That's what I was thinking. But look what you presumed about what I thought. That I "revealed" something to you that I meant to keep hidden. How wrong you were. That kind of mistake on your part would shake an honest man to the core, he'd revisit why he thinks the way he does and be more careful in the future. But not you. That's a real black mark on your soul, you should at least try to wash it off.

Shayne

[Matus1976]

Presumption is my pet peeve in these sorts of discussions. Someone tells me that I think X, when I know I think Y, that pisses me off but I can get over it if it's a miscommunication. But then when I come right out and say that I don't think Y and they persist, or they then start telling me I think A, B, C, D, E and I don't, well this presumptuous person has crossed WAY over the line. My theory of certainty does not allow me to have any respect for such a person,

Really, because you have done exactly this to me, and admitted it. You told me that I think X (I want to force others to be free) when I know I think Y (you can't force the absence of force) Was this a miscommunication? I came right out and said over and over and over again that not only do I not advocate 'forcing' people to be free, but that this is, in fact, not logically possible. So does this mean you lack respect for yourself now? And here is yet another post where you are acting all indignent and insulted.

Lets try to get back on target, what about your assertion that I am forcing others to value what I value, and then your immediate rephrasely of that to 'forcing others to be free' Please explain how you think both of those yet assert the latter was not based on your understanding of freedom, even while the former is a completely logical statement. You have continued to avoid this question over and over again. Why not just explain yourself? That would clear alot of confusion up.

**Sigh**, quoting Shayne again, In my view Shayne is the sort of person which is a product of our public schools. In a better world, the pathology that could make someone feel certain while they utter a stream of assertions that bear no relation to reality would be detected and corrected before the child turned 16. Unfortunately this pathology is precisely what the public schools encourage, with their "everyone's opinion matters" and "self-esteem" propaganda.