Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Further Adventures in ThirdPartyLand
Ron Paul's campaign has rebuffed the Libertarian Party's resolution and denied, again, that he'll run in the fall if he loses the GOP nomination.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said it would not happen. "Ron has no intention to run third party whatsoever," he said.
But there's progress in the most-underreported third party bid of the season. Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney—her of cop-punching and huge, scary entourage fame—made a stop in Iowa to promote her Green Party presidential bid.
"In most places my audience have been small on the Green side and large on the independent thinking side," McKinney said. She also noted that the Ron Paul movement is "wonderful for the Greens, because people are thinking independently."
"We're on the wrong track on just about every issue that concerns our way of life," says McKinney, putting the war at the top of the list.
If Paul passes on a third-party run, McKinney will bid for pieces of his coalition. I have no idea how successful she'd be, but you couldn't find two more antipodal personalities outside of a Justice League-Injustice Gang match-up.
Edward (not really)|12.10.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Stupid Nazis, why don't you go goose-step in your goose-step
yard, ya bunch of child molesting jerks! I'm never going to post
here ever again.
Of course, by never, I mean about five minutes, you KKK fellating
jerk-o's!
Edward (not really)|12.10.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Also:
Nazi
Nazi
Nazi
Nazi
Nazi
Nazi
Goosestep
Goosestep
Goosestep
Goosestep
Goosestep
Goosestep
Episiarch|12.10.07 @ 5:16PM|#
but you couldn't find two more antipodal personalities
outside of a Justice League-Injustice Gang match-up
So, does that make Ron Batman and her the Joker? That's a
presidential race I can be interested in.
|12.10.07 @ 5:16PM|#
I think that us libertarians should sue Cynthia McKinney and the
Green party. We have precedence as the wacky, goofy no way to get
elected party, and they're infringing on the copyright.
Est. Damages - $13,253,064,576.39
the innominate one|12.10.07 @ 5:17PM|#
There have been a lot of comic book references lately. It's almost like Timbo Cavanaughahyde is back.
Edward (not really)|12.10.07 @ 5:19PM|#
That's because we all know that Rorschach is a comic book
character that libertarians love.
And why do they love Rorshcach?
Because libertarians are all a bunch of Nazi-sympathizing
trailer-dwellers.
Also:
Nazi.
T|12.10.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Yeah, it saddens me that Cynthia McKinney doesn't get more press. If I can't get sensible policy measures and sane politicians, then I at least want entertainment for my tax dollar. She was good for that.
Derrick|12.10.07 @ 5:25PM|#
I'm really curious to see what will happen to the LP in the wake of the Ron Paul Revolution. Will the creative types who turned out 8 bazillion YouTube videos, a blimp tour, a $4.3 million fundraising day, etc. come streaming into the LP? Or will they go on to form another movement, leaving the LP members to continue debating the finer points of market anarchism?
|12.10.07 @ 5:39PM|#
A little off-topic, but in 2004 I was a naïve college student and made an impassioned plea for libertarians to support Badnarik in the campaign. It's 2007 now, and I want to ask you folks how those Kerry and Bush votes are working out for ya?
The Libertarian Guy|12.10.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Oh, good God. Why can't McKinney just crawl back into hiding and stay there?
|12.10.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Lyndon Larouche wants to get in on that action.
He's a Democrat, isn't he? The prohibition party is welcome to join
as a co-complainant, of course.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 5:45PM|#
Maybe Ron Paul could climb in with her. They make a cute, cudly couple. It would also put to bed any notion that Ron Paul is a racist.
squarooticus|12.10.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Derrick:
Or will they go on to form another movement, leaving the LP
members to continue debating the finer points of market
anarchism?
Any LP member who discovers anarcho-capitalism won't be a LP member
much longer.
For the rest of you:
Minarchy is a foolish and untenable compromise for those who don't
really understand why the free market works, why government can't
exist without coercion, that coercion is defined as the threat of
initiating violence, and why any threat to initiate violence is
both evil and unnecessary.
Reading about government,
coercion, and counter-economics will take you all of 45
minutes. It's good for the soul. :-)
Edward|12.10.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Ron Paul- Cynthia McKinney - Aaron Russo
What do they have in common?
IRRELEVANCE!
Okay, Russo's dead, but Ron Paul and McKinney just as well might
be.
SIV|12.10.07 @ 5:50PM|#
A little off-topic, but in 2004 I was a naïve college student and made an impassioned plea for libertarians to support Badnarik in the campaign. It's 2007 now, and I want to ask you folks how those Kerry and Bush votes are working out for ya?
The choice was easy for me. I didn't vote in the Presidential
contest for the first time since I was eligible in 1980.
Ali (formerly iih)|12.10.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Join the Party. (If you can, if not spread the word by making this video go viral).
SIV|12.10.07 @ 5:54PM|#
Oh, good God. Why can't McKinney just crawl back into hiding
and stay there?
As long as she stays away from DeKalb County I'm happy.
I do hope the Green Party does very well next year-- better chance
of a divided Government.
Edward (not really)|12.10.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Maybe Ron Paul could climb in with her. They make a cute, cudly couple. It would also put to bed any notion that Ron Paul is a racist.
That's because you're obviously a bigot.
Edward (really)|12.10.07 @ 6:05PM|#
I'm not a bigot, but I know a loser when I see one. RON PAUL WON'T WIN THE NOMINATION TO ANYTHING! HA, HA, HA, HA!
Derrick|12.10.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Minarchy is a foolish and untenable compromise [ ...
]
squarooticus,
I've actually been reading up on agorism and counter-economics
lately, and am somewhat enamored with them. Using market forces to
swallow up and replace government institutions makes a great deal
of sense.
However, I'm not convinced the political process should be entirely
abandoned. Counter-economics will be much more effective if we have
legislators who are constantly pushing to deregulate and privatize,
and who are willing to vote to abolish the aforementioned
institutions once they have become obsolete. In other words, I
think we should work the problem from both ends.
With the above in mind, my ultimate point is that if the
Libertarian Party is going to exist, it should be a political party
which can make some incremental progress by winning elections and
appealing to those voters who are more or less socially liberal and
more or less fiscally conservative. Market anarchism, whatever its
merits, is not a platform which will win elections any time
soon.
|12.10.07 @ 6:10PM|#
how those Kerry and Bush votes are working out for
ya?
I voted for Badnarik, and that didn't work out for me either. NYS
is so deep Blue that my vote doesn't matter anyway.
Well, Rudy vs. Hillary might make things more interesting, in the
same way that sticking a spatula handle down your throat and seeing
what color vomit comes out is interesting.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:12PM|#
Okay, who really believes Ron Paul has a chance of winning the Republican nomination? Who's really that fucking stupid? Anybody?
Derrick|12.10.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Okay, who really believes Ron Paul has a chance of winning
the Republican nomination? Who's really that fucking stupid?
Anybody?
Your mom?
Edward (not really)|12.10.07 @ 6:14PM|#
I'm not a bigot, but I know a loser when I see one.
Sheer projection. Keep that seig heilin' hand high capitan
nazi.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:15PM|#
I bought my mom a condo in Florida. She relies on me for political judgments.
Derrick|12.10.07 @ 6:16PM|#
I bought my mom a condo in Florida. She relies on me for
political judgments.
That's funny. Last night she told me she was a Ron Paul
supporter.
|12.10.07 @ 6:17PM|#
Benton is needing a new reality check because his bounced.
Fact is, Dr. Paul is heading for the LP nomination whether he has
"intentions" of it or not. He'd be very smart to take multiple
nominations if presented. Dr. Paul, as great as he is, needs to
realize that THIS IS NOT 1988! He's got a huge support base that
will take care of the general election ballot access problems for
him while he campaigns. If he has those in his pocket going into
St. Paul he can tell the GOP that they can win the White House with
him or lose it and their party without him. Then watch them
squirm.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:17PM|#
I repeat: Who really believes Ron Paul has a chance of winning the Republican nomination? You guys are just fucking around, right? You know that dorky little demogogue isn't going to be the nominee. So what the fuck is the point?
|12.10.07 @ 6:21PM|#
Minarchy is a foolish and untenable compromise for those who
don't really understand why the free market works, why government
can't exist without coercion, that coercion is defined as the
threat of initiating violence, and why any threat to initiate
violence is both evil and unnecessary.
Very interesting discussion in Guns, Germs, and Steel
about why every society that has grown past the tribal level has a
formal political organization of some kind. It has to do with
conflict resolution.
Essentially, as your society gets past the tribal level in size (a
few thousand), then people don't (and can't) know most of their
co-"citizens", and further don't (and can't) even have a meaningful
family-based relationship with them (even via extended
family).
At this point, a society needs some kind of formalized conflict
resolution, which restrains the ability of aggrieved parties and
their partisans from using violence. In the absence of such
restraint, the society is fatally unstable. This is all pretty
empirically based, not just theoretical.
That "restraint" usually takes the form of the political leaders
claiming the proverbial "monopoly on the use of force."
There's a reason why anarchy does not exist outside the lab, folks,
and why minarchy is the best we can do.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Fuck off, VM. Let's see how funny you find it when your contemptible little website is thrown off of Blogger.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Why, Matthew? Does the question bother you? Reality is a fucking bitch, isn't it?
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:26PM|#
There's a reason why anarchy does not exist outside the lab,
folks, and why minarchy is the best we can do. --RC Dean
But you can do better than Ron Paul. Don't settle for a third-rate
loony. There must be a presentable Libertarian candidate out there
somewhere. Keep looking.
Derrick|12.10.07 @ 6:27PM|#
You've got to do better than that. Try to be
funny.
I wasn't trying to be funny. Don't worry, I was gentle with
her.
SIV|12.10.07 @ 6:29PM|#
At this point, a society needs some kind of formalized conflict
resolution, which restrains the ability of aggrieved parties and
their partisans from using violence. In the absence of such
restraint, the society is fatally unstable.
Vendetta, dueling, lynching....
Exactly how do these forms of conflict resolution render a society
fatally unstable?
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:29PM|#
You're disgusting, Derrick. I guess that's the best a Ron Paul cultist can do when confronted with THE QUESTION.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:31PM|#
Ron Paul said something about God in the Constitution. Ron Paul is supported by Nazis. Ron Paul hates America. Ron Paul is the reason I'm still a virgin. Ron Paul makes me live in the basement of my parents house. Ron Paul is the reason I'm a massive douchebag with such a pathetic life that I sit around on a forum all day and spam against a Presidential candidate.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Enough with the spoofing. Either refute what I have to say or have a steaming hot cup of STFU. Fucking fools.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:34PM|#
Yeah, I'm talking to you, VM. Or whatever Urkobold hack is spoofing me at the moment.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:34PM|#
THE QUESTION (questions, actually)
Who really believes Ron Paul has a chance of winning the Republican
nomination? Who's really that fucking stupid? Anybody?
Big Nanny|12.10.07 @ 6:39PM|#
"I bought my mom a condo in Florida. "
It probably lost 15% of its' value in the last year. Good
thinking.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:42PM|#
It probably lost 15% of its' value in the last year.
True, but it's small change for me. I'm independently wealthy.
Didn't inherit it either.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 6:43PM|#
I'm independently wealthy. I made my money blowing goats for underground pornos.
Liberty lover|12.10.07 @ 6:45PM|#
Okay, I admit it. Ron Paul is a joke. That's why we love him. He's a good joke. He's our joke. We libertarians love a good joke.
Derrick|12.10.07 @ 6:48PM|#
I am stupid enough to believe that Ron Paul will be the next president. This country was founded on stupidity. It's in the constitution along with God. God is my second best imaginary friend. President Ron Paul is my very best imaginary friend.
crimestink|12.10.07 @ 6:51PM|#
Even if Ron paul loses, he's the best. We love him no matter what. He makes the sun shine.
Aaron Russo|12.10.07 @ 6:55PM|#
Ron Paul will unmask the real perps of 9/11. They weren't who you think they were. I speak from the grave.
|12.10.07 @ 6:58PM|#
Other than just being generally crazy Edward always trips me
out. Who cares if Paul gets the nomination? I mean, even if an
angel came down from heaven and assured me my candidate was not
going to win a party nomination I don't see that would change my
vote one bit. Every vote my candidate gets tells the eventual
nominee to take my candidate's stances into account when building
his or her platform.
I actually am starting to like Rudy in contrast to the other GOP
frontrunners, but someone like Edward doesn't realize that his
stupidity poisons the well for his own candidate around here. One
would have to think this guy actually hates Rudy and then comes on
here to proclaim his love of Rudy while being a royal idiot. That
or he is just retarded.
Geotpf|12.10.07 @ 7:00PM|#
J sub D | December 10, 2007, 5:43pm | #
Lyndon Larouche wants to get in on that action.
He's a Democrat, isn't he? The prohibition party is welcome to join
as a co-complainant, of course.
He says he is, so he is. The Supreme Court has stated that it is
unconstitutional for a political party to kick a member out; a
person is what political party he says he is, even if that party
wants nothing to do with him (like the Democratic Party and
LaRouche).
|12.10.07 @ 7:09PM|#
I voted for Jerry Brown in the Dem primary in 92. I had no
illusions that he would be the nominee. I voted for him because I
liked him and his positions best. I mean, what was the alternative,
to vote for Bill Clinton? If I wanted to do that I could have
always done so in the general election. Brown gave me a chance to
have a "dog in the fight" that best represented my positions at the
time.
I for one would not vote for Ron Paul (I believe in all the
accomplishments of the Progressive Era, for one thing, and think
they were mighty good things). But I think it idiotic for someone
to argue "Hey, candidate x is gonna win anyway so you should not
vote for candidate y." If he's gonna win anyway then I might as
well vote for someone I like.
|12.10.07 @ 7:11PM|#
Geoptf
I think you are only partially right. Anybody who meets the
qualifying standards set by the party cannot be "kicked out." Ir I
remember my Colbert Report episodes correctly the two parties had
big fees that had to be paid to qualify, but the Dems had not only
a lower fee but allowed a petition drive to bypass the fee (the GOP
of course is the party-of-the-rich). LaRouche and Duke ran in
Democratic primaries because it is cost prohibitive to run as a
Republican.
|12.10.07 @ 7:15PM|#
I believe in all the accomplishments of the Progressive Era,
for one thing, and think they were mighty good things
Ugh. Please, I'm eating.
BakedPenguin|12.10.07 @ 7:21PM|#
I think it idiotic for someone to argue "Hey, candidate x is gonna win anyway so you should not vote for candidate y."
MNG, while I disagree with a lot of your post, I definitely agree
with this. I have to wonder at the mentality of someone who votes
based on the idea that they're "going to win". If you help elect a
candidate that doesn't support what you believe in, you
lose. This isn't a f**king high school beauty
contest.
|12.10.07 @ 7:24PM|#
Yeah Crimethink, you know, government employees actually having
to demonstrate qualifications for government jobs instead of just
being someone's cousin or someone who worked the polls for the
winner of the election. Police academies for police (before the
Progressive era pretty much not in existence) or people with
degrees hired to do technical work. Cleaning up malarial pools and
stopping raw sewage from lining the streets.
Yeah, those Progressives were real bastards all right!
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Enough with the jokes re Edward's Mom.
Let me take a crack at "the question" [in ALL CAPS]:
I have no idea who will get the Republican nomination. Like some
famous guy supposedly said, it's hard to make predictions,
especially about the future.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121684.html
In 1956, JFK couldn't even get the Vice-Presidential nomination,
much less the Presidential. Did that mean his efforts were
fruitless? He came back in 1960.
In 1928, the Socialist candidate lost. The Socialist candidates
lost all their Presidential elections. Did that mean their efforts
were worthless? The duopoly parties (Dems and Reps) adopted a whole
lot of the Socialist platform.
George Wallace lost in 1968 and again in 1972. Yet he got enough
supporters to show that there were vote to be had among his
supporters by the major parties - a lesson the GOP took to
heart.
Ross Perot lost in 1992, but the voters he attracted - who liked
his message of balanced budgets - may have had influence on some of
the (limited) budget-balancing policies of future years.
Ron Paul's opponents lost around ten of his political campaigns -
does that mean the major parties should never have bothered
fielding candidates against him?
And then there's Goldwater's loss in 1964, McGovern's loss in 1972,
and Reagan's loss in 1976. Too bad that the followers of these
candidates disappeared after those elections and had no further
influence on public policy.
Politics is all about offering voters choices.
"Ron Paul- Cynthia McKinney - Aaron Russo
"What do they have in common?
"IRRELEVANCE!"
I think Dr. Paul is relevant -that's why I like to discuss him in
this forum.
What's your excuse?
|12.10.07 @ 7:29PM|#
Don't forget free speech and the right to privacy (developed
largely by Brandeis et al). Safe food and drugs (the market would
have gotten there in a couple of centuries I'm sure). Giving half
of the nation the right to vote. Direct election of senators,
recall and referndums. Acceptable accounting practices in
government budgeting....
We should throw that baby out with the Income Tax-Federal Reserve
bathwater I guess...
SIV|12.10.07 @ 7:31PM|#
I believe in all the accomplishments of the Progressive Era,
for one thing, and think they were mighty good things
Prohibition
Drug Prohibition
Eugenics
shall I go on?
|12.10.07 @ 7:31PM|#
Mad Max's point is a good one. Could anyone have predicted
Huckabee's rise in the polls six months ago? You never know who is
gonna break outta the pack.
And of course, as previously argued, it just does not matter as to
who wins as to determining mine or anyone's primary vote...
SIV|12.10.07 @ 7:35PM|#
MNG
Hey that is my shtick to list the anti-liberty and statist excesses
of the Progressive Era !
Progressive President Woodrow Wilson introducing Jim Crow into the
Civil Service system
FDR and Earl Warren interning innocent American Citizens of
Japanese descent in concentration camps.......
SIV|12.10.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Yeah Crimethink, you know, government employees actually
having to demonstrate qualifications for government jobs instead of
just being someone's cousin or someone who worked the polls for the
winner of the election.
It is much easier to downsize the bureaucracy in a patronage system
than in a career system.
Direct election of senators
Bad.....bad....bad. The Constitution was set up so that Senators
would represent the interest of their respective States and not the
crys and whims of the masses.
|12.10.07 @ 7:41PM|#
SIV
Your incoherence slip is showing again. FDR repealed Prohibition
and Earl Warren did more to kill Jim Crow than anyone else. So it
was all part of a naughty monolithic Progressive agenda huh?
|12.10.07 @ 7:41PM|#
Mr Nice Guy,
To be frank for a moment, what we need is less people being allowed
to vote, not more. If you don't know what a given office is
responsible for, and what powers come along with it, you shouldn't
be allowed to vote for it. That would eliminate about half the
electorate for the Presidential election, and far more for the rest
of the offices.
Big Nanny|12.10.07 @ 7:43PM|#
"Could anyone have predicted Huckabee's rise in the polls six
months ago?"
Huckabee's rise is due exclusively to Chuck Norris.
|12.10.07 @ 7:43PM|#
MNG,
So, good things done by Progressives = Progressive;
bad things done by Progressives = not Progressive.
Is that correct?
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 7:45PM|#
"Safe food and drugs (the market would have gotten there in a
couple of centuries I'm sure)"
You mean a particular *approach* to safe food and drugs. There have
been laws on this subject for centuries. Even King John had pure
food laws.
"Giving half of the nation the right to vote"
Which Progressives are you referring to? Some of them liked woman's
suffrage, some didn't, some (like President Wilson) wanted the
issue to go away, or at least be postponed. Wilson waited a long
time before yielding to pressure and endorsing what became the
Ninetheenth Amendment.
"Direct election of senators"
Don't let's get started on *that.*
"recall and referndums'
That's assuredly a Progressive accomplishment. Referenda were used
for great things that the Progressives would have found appalling:
Limiting taxes, prohibiting race discrimination . . .
"Acceptable accounting practices in government budgeting...."
You mean like Congress uses? [giggles]
Grover Norquist|12.10.07 @ 7:45PM|#
We should throw that baby out with the Income Tax-Federal
Reserve bathwater I guess...
Andrea Yates for President!
|12.10.07 @ 7:46PM|#
"It is much easier to downsize the bureaucracy in a patronage
system than in a career system." That's highly doubtful, and if it
does not get downsized, or if it does, you get good old corrupt and
incompetent government officials with the power to coerce folks.
Goody!
"The Constitution was set up so that Senators would represent the
interest of their respective States and not the crys and whims of
the masses." We call representing the interests of those masses
democracy, and it was the unique founding idea of this nation
(consent of the governed).
Eugenics was popular with plenty of non-Progressives, for instance
SCOTUS justice Holmes who liked him some libertarianism! Spencer's
(you can still get his books from most libertarian presses)
survival of the fittest stuff was fodder for much of the eugenics
sentiment.
|12.10.07 @ 7:46PM|#
I can see the Joker as a presidential candidate. He's not only a
successful entrepreneur, he's made and remade his fortune again and
again, every time he's broken out of the asylum, proving that he
possesses the resilience to get our economy back on track.
When you consider how many crazy people just talk to the walls and
drool, it's a real tribute to his character that he's gone so far
in life despite his psychological handicap.
True, once in the White House he'll probably go on a mass murder
spree and kill hundreds of people, but won't that be a vast
improvement over every single President we've ever had?
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 7:47PM|#
Don't forget transforming teachers into a "profession," ie, lefty interest group. And the educational theories of John Dewey. In a way, these developments were positive because they helped discredit government education, a key libertarian goal.
|12.10.07 @ 7:50PM|#
"There have been laws on this subject for centuries. Even King
John had pure food laws." And they were not working very well.
Hence the incredible support to change it. And hence the lack of
people dying all the time from contaminated and mislabaled food and
drugs.
"Which Progressives are you referring to?" Well, it didn't pass
under Cleveland or McKinely, now did it?
"You mean like Congress uses?" They used to fight bears with rocks,
and now many people do so with guns. Not all the guns kill the
bears. But that doesn't mean the rocks were better. Have you read
about the corruption pre-Progressive era and the astounding
ignorance in accounting methods used by many governments in this
nation at the time? I didn't think so.
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 7:50PM|#
"We call representing the interests of those masses democracy,
and it was the unique founding idea of this nation (consent of the
governed)."
Will get the first crack at this?
Americans didn't invent democracy - credit for this usually goes to
the Athenians. Key Founders like Madison looked at Athenian history
and saw mob rule (comparable to what he saw in the states in the
1780s).
That's why the U.S. constituion sets up [all together, now] a
Republic, not a democracy.
|12.10.07 @ 7:51PM|#
Not just teachers, Max, but pretty much every profession. You know, lots of education, a professional code of conduct, regulation by the peers in one's profession. Yeah, that worked out quite terribly, didn't it? When I think of surgeons today I think incompetence.
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 7:53PM|#
MNG,
The corruption was limited because government power was limited.
The Progressives wanted efficient government because they wanted
bigger government. Not to belittle the virtues of efficiency. And,
yes, we could certainly use some more honest accounting methods in
Congress.
SIV|12.10.07 @ 7:53PM|#
Don't forget transforming teachers into a "profession," ie,
lefty interest group. And the educational theories of John Dewey.
In a way, these developments were positive because they helped
discredit government education, a key libertarian goal.
Net Negative!
Government schools are alive and well and educating students worse
than ever while inculcating the gospels of statism, victimhood and
identity politics.
Sort of like saying the mass killings of 20th Century Socialist
States were good in a way because they discredited socialism.
|12.10.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Max-you're right about what was set up, in fact they tried to balance the good and bad of democracies (note the House for instance). But the novel idea used in the Declaration is consent of the governed. You have to argue pretty long and hard that thwarting the consent of the majority is good for that.
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 7:56PM|#
MNG,
First, thank you for having the guts to defend democracy and the
Progressive movement on a libertarian forum without lowering
yourself to name-calling and similar things.
"When I think of surgeons today I think incompetence."
Add the words "Veterans' Administration" before the word "surgeons"
if you want an analogy to government-run schools.
(Disclaimer - I'm sure that many individual VA doctors are
wonderful - just as many govt teachers are wonderful - it's the
system I'm critiquing, as well as those participants in the system
to support its premises)
|12.10.07 @ 7:57PM|#
It's just that Max, it was not "limited." Where do you get that? It was rampant and astounding. It was common for urban police detectives to live in mansions (they would solicit thieves to steal wealthy people's stuff, have the thief give them the stuff, and then collect the reward. Since there were no requirements for being a cop, and no system of accountability [most police chiefs could not discipline any officer since the officers were politically connected under SIV's blessed patronage system]) they did as they pleased and exercised power over their citizens in ways that would make the LAPD blush). That's just one example.
|12.10.07 @ 7:57PM|#
True, once in the White House he'll probably go on a mass
murder spree and kill hundreds of people, but won't that be a vast
improvement over every single President we've ever had?
Quite a few Presidents went on mass murder sprees anyway. They just
called it "war" or "strategic bombing" or my favorite, "police
action".
At least the Joker is honest.
SIV|12.10.07 @ 7:58PM|#
When I think of surgeons today I think
incompetence.
I could google up some morbidity and mortality stats to prove the
literal truth of your statement but lets just skip ahead to
cost-efficiency ......
If limiting entry into the medical professions is a good thing
let's set a quota for just one doctor licensed to practice
medicine... a really good one. That will sove the "healthcare"
mess.
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 7:59PM|#
and Progressives didn't write the Declaration of Independence - they wouldn't have included the part about "sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance."
|12.10.07 @ 8:00PM|#
I won't disagree with you Max, but the VA is not a Progressive
Department is it? The Progressive movement did initiate the
professionalization of doctors in general, and as I argue that has
worked out great if you ask me.
Don't confuse the New Deal with the Progressive Era.
I don't expect to convert many libertarians on the substantive
issues the Progressives supported, but in the least I think it
should be recognized that their professionalization of government
workers and services was in everyones interest. You might not like
the government taking your money and bringing services, but at the
least that money should be as well taken care of as possible and
the services should be as professionally administered as
possible.
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 8:01PM|#
Yes, the Progressives did some good things - but they also did he eugenics, the expansion of Jim Crow, etc.
|12.10.07 @ 8:05PM|#
"If limiting entry into the medical professions is a good thing
let's set a quota for just one doctor licensed to practice
medicine... a really good one. That will sove the "healthcare"
mess."
That's worse reasoning than the "Progressive Warren interned the
Japanese and the Progressive Wilson put through Jim Crow" reasoning
SIV. Maybe you should stop while you're behind?
One of the thing the medical profession takes into account when
liscensing is the demand.
They used to let just everybody practice. It worked out terribly.
Dead people and sick kids and all. Sorry guys, the market did not
fix it (and a little common sense can tell you why [think imperfect
information as a start]) and the public demanded a change.
Where do you people think the groundswell for these reforms came
from? The liberal media and the Ford Foundation?
SIV|12.10.07 @ 8:07PM|#
Yes, the Progressives did some good things - but they also did he eugenics, the expansion of Jim Crow, etc. forced removal and acculturation of Native-American children,perpetuating and institutionalizing poverty, destruction of families, criminalization of all kinds of behavior and classes of property......
|12.10.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Mad Max-I have to turn your own point on you now, Southern
Progressives did love Jim Crow, but Northern ones fought it tooth
and nail (you think the Republican Progressives supported a system
of disenfranchising their voters? WTF?). Don't you think that at
that time, even if the Progressive movement did not exist, pretty
much all Southern politicans would have supported the same?
And read my eugenics comments above please.
SIV
I could never take your day job (how are things under the bridge?).
Trolling is when someone says something just to get a rise (you
know, like popping up and irrelevantly saying you like
cock-fighting and dog fighting on threads). I've consistently
argued in favor of things like the Progressive movement. It's what
I believe, and what many people believe (I realize that comes to a
shock for someone who gets their news from Michelle Malkin ).
SIV|12.10.07 @ 8:11PM|#
and the public demanded a change
Got any cites for the masses calling for professional licensure?
Only the "professionals" using the State to enrich themselves by
rent seeking and limiting competition.
VM|12.10.07 @ 8:12PM|#
Edward | December 10, 2007, 6:22pm | #
Fuck off, VM. Let's see how funny you find it when your contemptible little website is thrown off of Blogger.
okay. 'specially since I was already fucked off, and this is my
first posting to this thread.
But I gladly accept that as a preemptive fuck off, and shall
refrain from any sort of activities on this thread.
Eric Dondero|12.10.07 @ 8:46PM|#
Shameless Plug:
I have the feature story today on one of the top Conservative
websites in the Nation - www.frontpage.com on precisely this topic
- Cynthia McKinney's recent visit to Houston.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 8:55PM|#
Okay, I can understand supporting a libertarian you know can't
win in order to get the libertarian message out there. But Ron Paul
is so unlibertarian on so many issues--gay adoption, building a
fence along the border, abolishing birthright citizenship, making
up God references in the Constitution--that I can't see how he's
going to help advance libertarianism. Then there's the Nazi/white
supremicist connection. A lot of folks who don't know
libertarianism from shinola will remember that.
So Ron Paul loses for sure. Nobody with any brains disputes that.
How does he help libertarianism? Seems to me he sets it back (if
that's possible).
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:07PM|#
I deny any and all accusations that my mother has ever worked the stage at a Tijuana Donkey Show wherein Eric Dondero was a member of the audience.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:08PM|#
Alas, I must plead the 5th when it comes to those who question whether I could be the result of a tryst between a woman and a purebread jackass.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:09PM|#
Geez, I can't get a serious response out of you guys. How would you deal with questions if your candidate were viable?
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:10PM|#
Okay, I can understand supporting a libertarian you know can't
win in order to get the libertarian message out there. But Ron Paul
is so unlibertarian on so many issues--gay adoption, building a
fence along the border, abolishing birthright citizenship, making
up God references in the Constitution--that I can't see how he's
going to help advance libertarianism. Then there's the Nazi/white
supremicist connection. A lot of folks who don't know
libertarianism from shinola will remember that.
So Ron Paul loses for sure. Nobody with any brains disputes that.
How does he help libertarianism? Seems to me he sets it back (if
that's possible).
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:12PM|#
Despite the fact that I'm a leftist jackass with no interest in honest debate, I will feign such now that others, who've been putting up with my inane rage-induced, hyperbolic and ad hominem-filled bullshit for months, have finally decided to throw it back in my face.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:12PM|#
Mad Max
Surely a good Catholic like you will afford me enough respect to
answer a sincere question.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:17PM|#
Note that I ask the above question whilst wearing my best
Anderson Cooper Serious Face.
See?
My face?
It is
serious.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:18PM|#
Also:
We all know that the Catholics helped the Nazis during WWII, so Mad
Max can't possibly give an answer to be taken seriously.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:18PM|#
C'mon, how does Gonna-Lose-For-Sure-Build-the-Fence-Along-the-Border-God's-in-the-Constitution-No-Gay-Adoptions-Keep-the-Nazi-Money Ron Paul help advance libertarianism?
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:19PM|#
Ron Paul has goosestepped his way into my heart.
I hope to one day perform oral sex upon his no-doubt
impressively-sized and gold-adorned member.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:20PM|#
Okay, I can understand supporting a libertarian you know can't
win in order to get the libertarian message out there. But Ron Paul
is so unlibertarian on so many issues--gay adoption, building a
fence along the border, abolishing birthright citizenship, making
up God references in the Constitution--that I can't see how he's
going to help advance libertarianism. Then there's the Nazi/white
supremicist connection. A lot of folks who don't know
libertarianism from shinola will remember that.
So Ron Paul loses for sure. Nobody with any brains disputes that.
How does he help libertarianism? Seems to me he sets it back (if
that's possible).
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:20PM|#
VM-
I'd like to do another interview with Urkobold!
You guys write some fantastic stuff over there.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:21PM|#
Despite the fact that I'm a leftist jackass with no interest in
honest debate, I will feign such now that others, who've been
putting up with my inane rage-induced, hyperbolic and ad
hominem-filled bullshit for months, have finally decided to throw
it back in my face.
I LIKE TO COPY AND PASTE. MOSTLY BECAUSE I HAVE JUST
DISCOVERED THE ABILITY TO DO SO THIS VERY AFTERNOON!
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:24PM|#
No, you're the imposter. I'm the real Edward. The one that looks at furry porn until 5 in the morning. Stop spoofing me!
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:24PM|#
So nobody wants to face the truth about Ron Paul. Too much invested (emotionally, I mean) in his silly, hopeless candidacy to admit that it doesn't even help advance the libertarian message? Fuck, what a downer. You guys must feel like shit.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:25PM|#
Despite the fact that I'm a leftist jackass with no interest in
honest debate, I will feign such now that others, who've been
putting up with my inane rage-induced, hyperbolic and ad
hominem-filled bullshit for months, have finally decided to throw
it back in my face.
Now, you're both imposters!
Honest Abe|12.10.07 @ 9:32PM|#
Gonna-Lose-For-Sure-Build-the-Fence-Along-the-Border-God's-in-the-Constitution-No-Gay-Adoptions-Keep-the-Nazi-Money Ron Paul DOESN'T help advance libertarianism. HE'S KILLING IT!
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:34PM|#
Honest Abe.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thomas Paine|12.10.07 @ 9:36PM|#
Ron Paul lies about the Constitution! Don't allow him to establish a priest-ridden theocracy! We fought to rid ourselves of such scoundrels.
Bin Laden|12.10.07 @ 9:38PM|#
It's true! If by Ron Paul you mean Edward!
Because, let's face it. Edward gives the best blow jobs.
Saddam|12.10.07 @ 9:41PM|#
If you had listened to Ron Paul, I wouldn't be playing checkers with this idiot Aaron Russo.
Ron Paul|12.10.07 @ 9:44PM|#
Don't listen to Edward. Send more money. Even Nazi money. I don't care. Baby needs a new pair of shoes.
Bin Laden|12.10.07 @ 9:45PM|#
I am hiding in Edward's vagina! It has two-way radio and everything! But not the HBO any more. It was turned off because his mom didn't pay the bill.
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:46PM|#
I should consider posting an email address on this forum. I
mean, it's not like I have any friends.
Maybe someone would send me an email!
David Duke|12.10.07 @ 9:48PM|#
You've already spent the money I sent you? On what, for Christ's sake? Those two-bit actors you hired for that stupid ad?
Edward|12.10.07 @ 9:51PM|#
Okay, that's it. This is my last post, and this time I really mean it. Maybe just one more post when the primaries are over. You know, just for old time's sake.
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 10:15PM|#
It's turning into the Mad Tea Party over here! Anyway . .
.
"Mad Max
"Surely a good Catholic like you will afford me enough respect to
answer a sincere question."
Patience, Ed (if it's you who posted that). I shouldn't even be
posting here at all right now - I'm studying for a test. Sheesh - I
turn my attention away from the thread for a few minutes and you
start experiencing withdrawal symptoms.
I thought I already answered "the question" (or THE QUESTION), and
I don't know which additional question you want me to answer, so
let me take one of your comments at random:
"But Ron Paul is so unlibertarian on so many issues--gay adoption,
building a fence along the border, abolishing birthright
citizenship, making up God references in the Constitution"
All right, let's see. Taking these issues one by one:
gay adoptions -
As a good Catholic, I was certainly not impressed when Mitt
Romney's Massachusetts forced the Catholic Church to stop putting
children up for adoption,
http://tinyurl.com/h6dbp
I suppose the attitude of some gay activists was, "if we can't
adopt kids through a Catholic agency, nobody can!" As for the
welfare of the children concerned - ah, everyone knows that "for
the children" is a meaningless slogan, right?
border fence -
Everyone on H&R (whether they agree with it or not) knows the
rationale for Dr. Paul's immigration stance - you can't combine a
huge welfare state with open borders and expect everything to be
hunky-dory.
birthright citizenship -
Let's be clear - the good Doctor wants to keep birthright
citizenship for the children of citizens, and let Congress decide
on the citizenship status of the children of aliens. Insofar as
that applies to the children of illegal aliens, I think the Dr. is
right. Even if you disagree, Dr. Paul is seeking this
Constitutional change through the only acceptable method - an
amendment to the Constitution, requiring three-fourths of the
states to approve. That's 38 states. He's not trying to sneak this
into the Constitution through executive order, Act of Congress, or
Supreme Court opinion.
God in the Constitution:
If you add together all the references to God in the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution, you get five references. The
fifth reference is specifically to Christ - the phrase "year of our
Lord" in Article VII. Then there's Article I, Section 7, which
gives the President "ten days (Sundays excepted) to veto a
bill.
Some say that the phrase 'year of our Lord" is merely a throwaway
line - but Article VII clearly calculates the year based on the
"year of our Lord' and the year of 'the Independence of the United
States of America' - is the reference to American independence also
a throwaway line?
Among modern secularists, the convention is to say "Common Era"
(CE) or "Before Common Era" (BCE) rather than the customary "year
of Our Lord."
"The changes -- showing up at museums, in academic circles and in
school textbooks -- have been touted as more sensitive to people of
faiths outside of Christianity."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060527/ai_n16436633
Those theocratic Founders - insensitive to non-Christians!
Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 10:31PM|#
Oh, Massachusetts gave Catholics another option: They could stay in the adoption business so long as they were willing to disobey the Pope and the bishops, not to mention the teachings of their own Church. So it's OK, I guess - that's a very light burden to impose on religious consciences, isn't it?
MJ|12.10.07 @ 10:42PM|#
"If Paul passes on a third-party run, McKinney will bid for
pieces of his coalition."
Exactly what pieces of Ron Paul's coalition would consider
supporting McKinney? McKinney is diametrically opposed to most of
what Paul stands for. I find it beyond credible that there is a
sizable number of voters who would support both, and they'd be
ignorant of what one or the other truly stands for, or cranks not
motivated by a political philosophy but just wish to throw a wrench
in the works. Weigel can be ridiculously naive.
|12.10.07 @ 11:53PM|#
A little off-topic, but in 2004 I was a naïve college student and made an impassioned plea for libertarians to support Badnarik in the campaign. It's 2007 now, and I want to ask you folks how those Kerry and Bush votes are working out for ya?
Probably about as well as my Badnarik vote worked out for me. I
voted Libertarian, and Bush *still* won.
This is why I am throwing my whole being into Ron Paul's campaign,
because he is running as a Republican. Having the "R" after his
name on the ballot will lock up a good 40% in a general election
(assuming, of course, that he can win the nomination - not yet
probable, but certainly possible. He's gone from a snowball's
chance in Hell of six months ago, to a snowball's chance in the
panhandle of Florida - It might not freeze often, but it does
freeze.)
Later.
|12.11.07 @ 12:15AM|#
To be frank for a moment, what we need is less people being
allowed to vote, not more. If you don't know what a given office is
responsible for, and what powers come along with it, you shouldn't
be allowed to vote for it. That would eliminate about half the
electorate for the Presidential election, and far more for the rest
of the offices.
But half the electorate doesn't vote anyway!
Stephen Gordon|12.11.07 @ 1:40AM|#
Rimfax,
I note there are no Donderooooooo entries under the troll category
at the Wiki? What gives?
|12.11.07 @ 9:27AM|#
Wonder if RP actually means it, regarding not contemplating third party run, or if it's just a strategy to try and motivate his supporters not to rely on the expectation of him running 3rd Party. He's smart to tell a white lie, if he is lying, in this case.
|12.11.07 @ 9:34AM|#
"We're on the wrong track on just about every issue that
concerns our way of life," says McKinney, putting the war at the
top of the list.
McKinney then went on to list other areas in which her way of life
is threatened. The rising of price of gold is like a hidden tax on
bling. Federal fuel economy standards make it increasingly
difficult to transport gigantic entourages. As cell phones become
ever smaller, the damage they can do when hurled at mouthy staffers
is reduced.
It's like a buppie pol holocaust, I tell you.
|12.11.07 @ 9:39AM|#
"I believe in all the accomplishments of the Progressive Era,
for one thing, and think they were mighty good things" -
mrniceguy
So you support the income tax, direct election of Senators, the
federal reserve, and allowing the states to forcibly sterilize
retards?
|12.11.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Wonder if RP actually means it, regarding not contemplating
third party run, or if it's just a strategy to try and motivate his
supporters not to rely on the expectation of him running 3rd Party.
He's smart to tell a white lie, if he is lying, in this
case.
RP doesn't strike me as a particularly sneaky sort. Besides, other
than vanity, I see little purpose in his running on the LP ticket.
He's already done way more as a Republican in the way of "voter
education" than he could ever do with the LP.
Eric Dondero|12.11.07 @ 7:39PM|#
Tom Knapp noted over at TPW that he's studied Cynthia McKinney
and Ron Paul's votes, and has found that they agree on fully 80% of
the issues.
One can only conclude that a healthy chunk of Ron Paul's coalition
will go over to Cynthia McKinney.
Then there's the conspiracy thing.
And of course, both Cynthia and Ron are not terribly fond of
Jews.
So, there's a strong connection there, as well.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245