Is Ron Paul as dangerous as Bidinotto claims?

[sjw]

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.

I call myself a rational individualist, and I mean that as a concept not as the name of a concrete group.

[sjw]

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.

So if I did it, then that makes it OK for you to do it? Because I'd say that my shame doesn't make yours less. Unless you're Christian.

[Matus1976]

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

Well, thats your interpretation, I'd ask what others thought of this and my comments in post 145 if there are any third parties left reading this.

My 'stupid remarks' are positions and arguments you disagree with. Your 'stupid remarks' are insults and vague accusations. Perhaps if you just refrained from these in the first place, this thread would have gone alot better. You have in fact revealed that you intentionally hurl insults to try to dissuade conversation from progressing. I have revealed, what? that despite this I stick around in order to try to understand your position? and THAT is a 'black mark on my soul' whew. I think the simpler explanation is that your insults and accustations are just completely irrelevant to me, and that you think anyone who disagrees with your is merely 'stupid'

[Matus1976]

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.

I call myself a rational individualist, and I mean that as a concept not as the name of a concrete group.

Ok, I would call myself that as well. But what are the practical manifestations of your conceptual identification here? I understand from your discussion on what makes a nation free, that the government should not be involved in business at all, and should not be involved in regulating voluntary interaction between consenting individuals? Should there be a government at all? What would this government do in your idea of a free nation? (for instance, I would answer that as being the final arbiter in matters of dispute, of holding a monopoly over time delayed retaliatory use of force, and responsible for self defense)

[sjw]

My 'stupid remarks' are positions and arguments you disagree with.

Here you go presuming what I think again.

Your 'stupid remarks' are insults and vague accusations. Perhaps if you just refrained from these in the first place, this thread would have gone alot better. You have in fact revealed that you intentionally hurl insults to try to dissuade conversation from progressing.

And again with the presumption. You're on a roll. You've been on a roll all week. I think that is all you know how to do--presume for me and then answer your stupid presumption. You could have an argument with yourself. No strike that, you *are* having an argument with yourself--yourself and your stupid presumptions.

You do not know what I intend. You haven't the slightest clue. You are not inside my head. I on the other hand have direct access to what I've been intending to do. Not only are you not a psychic, you're not a good philosopher either, and are utterly helpless at deducing what I actually intend.

You can't even stop presuming in the middle of a discussion about your presumptions!

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.

So if I did it, then that makes it OK for you to do it? Because I'd say that my shame doesn't make yours less. Unless you're Christian.

No, the point of this was that you are doing exactly what you hate it when other people do that to you. Have I *actually* done that to you? I dont think so, because I asked you a dozen times now what you mean by 'freedom', and you never answered. Have you actually done that to me? I think so, because I've told you a dozen times exactly what I meant by freedom and how it was not possible to force that on someone, yet you still persisted in saying I adovcated 'forcing' freedom on others.

Perhaps we can clearify this with more ease, can you point to an early post in any other thread in any forum in which you identified your definition for freedom? If you have a previously established definition of freedom on the web which you have stated and a reasonable time authentication to it which is not compatable with the idea of 'forcing freedom' on others, we'll have a better idea of where the mistake in communication occured.

[Matus1976]

My 'stupid remarks' are positions and arguments you disagree with.

Here you go presuming what I think again.

That is the only logical possiblity. Any personal insults or vague accusations were direct copies of your insults / accusations. What is left to be my 'stupid remarks' but my opinions and statements. In which case, 'stupid remarks' are just things you disagree with. But feel free to quote a 'stupid remark' of mine that is not a statement of my opinion or a copy/paste of your 'stupid remarks'

Your 'stupid remarks' are insults and vague accusations. Perhaps if you just refrained from these in the first place, this thread would have gone alot better. You have in fact revealed that you intentionally hurl insults to try to dissuade conversation from progressing.

And again with the presumption. You're on a roll. You've been on a roll all week. I think that is all you know how to

<snip>

bla bla bla you talk alot without saying much, let's try to up that signal to noise ratio, how about, 2 meaningful posts for every 10 posts of huffing and hawing?

You do not know what I intend. You haven't the slightest clue. You are not inside my head.

Duh which is why I ask lots of questions, often the same question over and over and over again, and you rail on and on, like you are here again, about everything but answering questions. About your feelings, you opinions on public schooling, your attitudes on relating arguments to age, on and on.

What is your definition of freedom?

where is your logical proof that i was advocating 'forcing' freedom on others

do you have any established post where you define freedom?

[sjw]

Duh which is why I ask lots of questions, often the same question over and over and over again, and you rail on and on, like you are here again, about everything but answering questions. About your feelings, you opinions on public schooling, your attitudes on relating arguments to age, on and on.

I don't have the time or inclination to deal with your mountain of bogus presumptions and requests. Nor do I think they are relevant to this thread. You can respond privately to me if you want and I *might* deal with *limited* questions offline, but I've had enough of you in this thread.

If anyone besides Matus or Johnny wants to discuss Ron Paul's foreign policy I'll probably participate.

[Wolf DeVoon]

If anyone besides Matus or Johnny wants to discuss Ron Paul's foreign policy I'll probably participate.

I blocked Matus and Johnny (it's on their Member Profile > Options), so we can talk in peace. I think the essence of the question is collective action. In previous writing, I said:

The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs. (Freeman's Constitution, Preamble)

The basic error that canonical Objectivists make is conflating ethics and the rule of law. I agree with Ron Paul that we have no constitutional or rational collective purpose occupying overseas territory. But there is such a thing as collective purpose that limits individual rights, yours and mine as citizens, if you agree to the notion of citizenship.

W.

[Matus1976]

I don't have the time or inclination to deal with your mountain of bogus presumptions and requests. Nor do I think they are relevant to this thread. You can respond privately to me if you want and I *might* deal with *limited* questions offline, but I've had enough of you in this thread.

If anyone besides Matus or Johnny wants to discuss Ron Paul's foreign policy I'll probably participate.

More chest pounding and indignance. How about we just get back to questions?

By what standard are you measuring "freedom"?

Where do you rank the US?

Tell me in what way Ron Paul will act to promulgate the freedom of other people in the world?

What nation is the best friend of freedom in the world?

What is the "most free" or "least oppressive" nation?

Do we trade with brutally oppressive shit holes or do we not?

How do we keep offensive western culture which incites murderous terrorism out of the hands of these brutal regimes?

What is your definition of freedom?

How do I 'force' someone to be free?

What nation do you live in now? Would you move to North Korea?

What nation is doing the most toward promulgating the growth of individual freedom in the long term?

How about identifying different kinds of freedoms, then rating them in importance, which is most important? Is being taxed on income the same thing as being indefinately imprisoned until being tortured to death?

Have you started a business in the US?

WHEN did I say I want to force people to be free?

Can you rank countries by their freedoms yet not be a relativist?

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?

Could we defend individual rights at home WITHOUT the armed forces, or police?

What would this government do in your idea of a free nation?

How old are you?

[Matus1976]

Not only are you not a psychic, you're not a good philosopher either

I could of course retort by saying "You're not a good philosopher either" but you still wouldnt get it.

Hey, FRONT PAGE NEWS, Shayne think's I'm not a good philosopher!!! Wow!!! Stop the presses! Do you think I actually care whether you think I'm a good philosopher? Seriously?? You must have an over inflated sense of self worth to think some stranger on a forum values your assessment of him so much as to make such a statement worthy of making. I don't, yet you continue to make absurd comments like this, the only reason for doing so then is to make yourself feel better. Hows that's working out for you?

[sjw]

I blocked Matus and Johnny (it's on their Member Profile > Options), so we can talk in peace. I think the essence of the question is collective action. In previous writing, I said:

Thanks for the tip.

The basic error that canonical Objectivists make is conflating ethics and the rule of law. I agree with Ron Paul that we have no constitutional or rational collective purpose occupying overseas territory.

The law, something made and implemented by individual men, is subject to ethics, it should not contradict ethics. It is an error to conflate them, it's a worse error to ignore the hierarchy: law is subordinate to ethics. (I am not saying you're doing this, just pointing out the other side of the issue).

But there is such a thing as collective purpose that limits individual rights, yours and mine as citizens, if you agree to the notion of citizenship.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. I think I agree in principle. However, modern governments claim huge tracts of unoccupied land as if it were theirs, giving no one any possibility of renouncing their citizenship if they so choose. I don't object so much to there being laws that might, so to speak, "limit" individual rights, just as I don't object to there being house rules when I visit someone's home. But when someone declares that they own not only the home, but the millions of acres that surround it, well that is in essence an act of war on any rational human being who is passing through or trying to earn a living on that unoccupied land. The government should own zero land (they can rent from private individuals for their purposes), and no individual should own land by fiat--they must do something productive with the land.

There's a word for someone who is bound by house rules and who cannot leave the house: He's called a prisoner.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

We have a lot in common, so I'll acknowledge that first.

There's a word for someone who is bound by house rules and who cannot leave the house: He's called a prisoner.

Where we part in our thinking is the relationsihp between ethics and law. Here's my take on it:

Ayn Rand had the right idea. The guiltiest of men are the natural oligarchs, who abdicated their leadership of an anarcho-capitalist revolution. Instead of giving Harry Truman the atomic bomb, it could have and should have been developed in a laboratory at Galt's Gulch. This is the moral meaning of inequality. When the men of brains collaborate with a mob of dullards, it's unfair to blame the resultant calamity on a crowd of pickpockets and cheerleaders. Sadly, a moral principle never reaches beyond itself. Its ethical arms are too short, extending no farther than one man's soul, one man's purpose and lifespan. We have to look elsewhere for political guidance, because the thing at issue is "a nation of laws and not of men." Whether the nation is defined by physical or anonymous digital territory, the constitution of its legal system cannot be deduced rationally from one person's moral purpose, however noble. (Principles of Internet Law)

Returning to Bidinotto and Ron Paul, the original subject of this thread, I agree with Wendy McElroy that voting is immoral. I like Ron Paul. I hope his candidacy will split and disable the Republican Party and help elect a Democrat, but I'm skeptical that it's possible. I fear for the fate of the republic, not from any external threat, but because the debt burden (fiat money and credit inflation bubble) hollowed out whatever reason existed for US progress -- politically, legally, financially, culturally, you name it.

I predict a severe Depression, bankruptcies, hysterical populism ahead. Then war. Not video games in Iraq against insurgents. I mean real war. Bad time to be stuck in a US city.

W.

[Matus1976]

I blocked Matus and Johnny (it's on their Member Profile > Options), so we can talk in peace. I think the essence of the question is collective action. In previous writing, I said:

Thanks for the tip.

That's a shame, Shayne, you agreed strongly with me on the Issue of Innate Talent, even where you and I were among the overwhelming minority of voices. And for that matter, Johnny agreed with us as well.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=16218

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=12019

Edited January 10, 2008 by Matus1976

[Johnny]

The basic error that canonical Objectivists make is conflating ethics and the rule of law. I agree with Ron Paul that we have no constitutional or rational collective purpose occupying overseas territory. But there is such a thing as collective purpose that limits individual rights, yours and mine as citizens, if you agree to the notion of citizenship.

W.

It's a shame Wolf DeVoon blocked the viewing of my posts as I would like to address this notion we have no rational purpose of occupying foreign land. The nation of America was once "foreign land", but it was occupied by primitive peoples that did not have any formulated concept of freedom or individual rights. Having said that Wolf has not presented a logically consistent principle here, only that it's not right to occupy foreign land anytime after the Constitution was drafted, or for that matter the territories incorporated into America following the signing of the Constitution was still ok, because the Constitution after all allowed for that as well. This is a typical of many Libertarians (I don't know if Wolf proclaims to be one) that do not have a well thought out concept of the principles of freedom. The Constitution apparently, is the guiding post to when principles begin to apply, and for the expediency of the moment, the principle was apparently suspended or never existed until the document was drafted since the land America was founded on was occupied by other inhabitants. (Interestingly enough as a side note, the notion presented by George Washington of "no entangling alliances" apparently didn't apply also before the drafting of the constitution as America was all too happy to enter into an entangling alliance with France to gain independence from Great Britain.) If anything Wolf has a tribalistic notion of freedom, that it only applies to "Americans" living in "America", but not to anyone else.

But let's look at these "foreign lands". Which lands do we typically discuss as being occupied by Western powers? They are generally lands that were operated by brutal oppressive governments that did not respect the sovereignty of their own citizens rights, including those of self-defense. Ron Paul and his idiotic supporters presume to think any nation, no matter how it treats its citizens, has a legitimate claim to sovereignty. But if a nation's government does not respect it's own citizens right to self defense, that government has no legitimate claim to sovereignty. While we have no moral obligation to occupy a foreign land once occupied by a totalitarian government, we can if it serves our own interest as a moral option if and when all the facts come in that lead us to believe it would be in our interests.

But Ron Paul would love us to continue engaging in free trade with foreign nations, but should our trading partners be attacked, he says it's none of our business. Another words when our interests are threatened, his principle states we can not act to protect them. What kind of principle is that? Oh wait, it's not! He's not actually for protecting one's rational long-term interests. Bidinotto is right. Ron Paul is dangerous.

[Rich Engle]

"The nation of America was once 'foreign land', but it was occupied by primitive peoples that did not have any formulated concept of freedom or individual rights."

That one always gets me zero traction. Main reaction: "Who the f**k says?"

It's just a big rationalization for imperialism. Ask the indigenous, they always more or less said "not perfect, but better if you leave us alone."

It's cavalier. Yeah, let's go edu-muh-kate the locals (which includes running them off their land, and giving them new, swanky social and other diseases).

Screw that.

rde

Oh, and I would be remiss to mention quotes after commas and periods, not before, and such.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Rich Engle

[Johnny]

"The nation of America was once 'foreign land', but it was occupied by primitive peoples that did not have any formulated concept of freedom or individual rights."

That one always gets me zero traction. Main reaction: "Who the f**k says?"

It's just a big rationalization for imperialism. Ask the indigenous, they always more or less said "not perfect, but better if you leave us alone."

It's cavalier. Yeah, let's go edu-muh-kate the locals (which includes running them off their land, and giving them new, swanky social and other diseases).

Screw that.

rde

Oh, and I would be remiss to mention quotes after commas and periods, not before, and such.

So Rich if you can help me understand your position, you're saying America had no moral basis for establishing a government with the respect for liberty, and that the indigenous tribes of America had an equal or higher moral claim to that land on the basis they too respected liberty?

[sjw]

That one always gets me zero traction. Main reaction: "Who the f**k says?"

It's just a big rationalization for imperialism. Ask the indigenous, they always more or less said "not perfect, but better if you leave us alone."

It's cavalier. Yeah, let's go edu-muh-kate the locals (which includes running them off their land, and giving them new, swanky social and other diseases).

Screw that.

In my opinion, the biggest mistake the founders made--by far--is to accept the ancient idea that a few men can get together, draw a map, and legitimately outline vast tracts of land they are going to assert their rules on, as if they owned the place. This is almost synonymous with warmongering and it's no surprise that's what it leads to: war and death. There's as much legitimacy in what they did as there is in you and me getting together and declaring that we own the Moon and Mars. That is a completely arbitrary definition of ownership. Ownership requires use, and in the case of land, productive use, like building a house or plowing a field. And unless you own it, you can't legitimately assert your rules.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

In my opinion, the biggest mistake the founders made--by far--is to accept the ancient idea that a few men can get together, draw a map, and legitimately outline vast tracts of land they are going to assert their rules on, as if they owned the place. This is almost synonymous with warmongering and it's no surprise that's what it leads to: war and death. There's as much legitimacy in what they did as there is in you and me getting together and declaring that we own the Moon and Mars. That is a completely arbitrary definition of ownership. Ownership requires use, and in the case of land, productive use, like building a house or plowing a field. And unless you own it, you can't legitimately assert your rules.

Two items: The Founders had no voice or choice about territory. The King chartered colonies, so blame him or Parliament or both. Also, "usufruct" theories, mostly derived from Locke, were a reaction to the royal prerogative, considered Enlightened two centuries ago but decidedly unhelpful today.

W.

[sjw]

In my opinion, the biggest mistake the founders made--by far--is to accept the ancient idea that a few men can get together, draw a map, and legitimately outline vast tracts of land they are going to assert their rules on, as if they owned the place. This is almost synonymous with warmongering and it's no surprise that's what it leads to: war and death. There's as much legitimacy in what they did as there is in you and me getting together and declaring that we own the Moon and Mars. That is a completely arbitrary definition of ownership. Ownership requires use, and in the case of land, productive use, like building a house or plowing a field. And unless you own it, you can't legitimately assert your rules.

Two items: The Founders had no voice or choice about territory. The King chartered colonies, so blame him or Parliament or both. Also, "usufruct" theories, mostly derived from Locke, were a reaction to the royal prerogative, considered Enlightened two centuries ago but decidedly unhelpful today.

W.

They didn't have to keep the King's rules after they kicked him out.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

They didn't have to keep the King's rules after they kicked him out.

Quite right, except that there were 3 million Americans -- er, American Brits and some Dutch, a few Frenchmen and Germans, several hundred thousand African slaves, plus an Indian nation in Georgia squatting the original 13 colonies, more or less according to the Royal boundaries. Well not exactly. Seven of the colonies (newly independent States) had overlapping boundary claims that couldn't be resolved until 1790, and the Georgians wanted to evict the Cherokees from their treaty land. Can't think of much the Founders did right, territorially speaking.

That said, I have always admired Madison, Jefferson, Paine and Franklin in particular. Good guys, outnumbered by clergy and fools.

W.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[sjw]

Where we part in our thinking is the relationsihp between ethics and law.

I didn't grasp your position from what you quoted, but it sounds like the real disagreement is not about law & ethics, it's about ethics. I.e., I think ethics is objective, you think it is subjective. Sounds like the standard disagreement Objectivism has with relativism.

Shayne

[sjw]

That said, I have always admired Madison, Jefferson, Paine and Franklin in particular. Good guys, outnumbered by clergy and fools.

They were mostly good guys, and a few probably even agreed with me (probably not Franklin, and I don't think I like him very much). On the other hand, we can't build on the shoulders of giants by repeating their mistakes.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Where we part in our thinking is the relationsihp between ethics and law.

I didn't grasp your position from what you quoted, but it sounds like the real disagreement is not about law & ethics, it's about ethics. I.e., I think ethics is objective, you think it is subjective. Sounds like the standard disagreement Objectivism has with relativism.

Shayne

Well, perhaps. I've always prided myself on being an Objectivist second class. Lacking a first rate brain, I had no choice about matching or topping Rand's achievements. Anyway, I think value and virtue are important, and I accept Rand's account of "is therefore ought" contra Hume and David Friedman, for instance. However, the philosophy of law is not the handmaiden of ethics (or religion or any other external value system). To see what I mean, please Google my name and/or Freeman's Constitution. The upshot is a single paragraph posted at http://wolfdevoon.tripod.com

W.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[sjw]

Well, perhaps. I've always prided myself on being an Objectivist second class. Lacking a first rate brain, I had no choice about matching or topping Rand's achievements.

I don't see the point in ranking yourself.

Anyway, I think value and virtue are important, and I accept Rand's account of "is therefore ought" contra Hume and David Friedman, for instance. However, the philosophy of law is not the handmaiden of ethics (or religion or any other external value system). To see what I mean, please Google my name and/or Freeman's Constitution. The upshot is a single paragraph posted at http://wolfdevoon.tripod.com

W.

I don't see the connection between that quote and the issue. Anyway, it strikes me as almost axiomatic or a simple deduction: ethics deals with how one ought to act; the law and its implementation are a species of human action, therefore the science of the first must set the ground rules for the second.

Shayne