RON paUl PhOR pr351D3n7

The candidate drops in on G4's The Loop to answer questions relevant to gamers, as decided by one of the network's handsome white reporter-drones.

Comments

[mk]

R0n Pau1 is the 133t presidential candidate. All others are sux0r n00bs.

[Warren]

Wow, we're really excited about your not regulating us policy. But we can't understand how you can possibly support your not regulating them policy.

[bret]

Regulating is bad, mkay. Any little bit becomes WAY TOO MUCH, really effing fast. So, better to have none, than way too much. Government is dumb. I trust entrepreneurs to come up with sekrit workarounds and solutions and wiruses more than I trust government to "level the fragging field."

[Steven]

Regulation is good, if it's done in moderation, by a neutral party, and for the good of society.

I trust the government to regulate slightly more than the corporations that abused the laws in the first place.

Lobbying and lack of information is the problem most government officials have. Conflict of interest, and ineptitude.

[Randolph Carter]

I remember hearing someone say that this interview make Paul look kind of foolish for not understanding the issues of Net Neutrality.

But I think the complainer was the fool - He doesn't know and he doesn't need to know, it's not the government's business anyways!

[Derrick]

I'm impressed with the interviewer. He seems to know his shit, and he asks some incisive policy questions you wouldn't hear on CNN or MSNBC.

[Max]

@Steven:

I rather trust a coporation than government, because the first I can sue, the letter can imprison me. This doesn't absolve any corporation for doing ill, but it is a major difference. However, I don't trust incompetent politicians like George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or everyone else to make any significant decisions about my life...

[ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE]

I love this man.

Steven trusts the government? What rock has he been living under?

No, corporations are not run by angels, but at least they do not have guns to try to force me to do what they like.

In spite of the fact that McDonald's is sending me subtle but powerful messages through advertising, I can still Eat Fresh!(tm) at Subway whenever I want! 🙂

[Warren]

I trust the government to regulate slightly more than the corporations that abused the laws in the first place.

The problem is that when you give the government the power to regulate, the corporations use their power to corrupt the government. The regulations are then used for the benefit of the largest corporations to undermine competition that might otherwise have forced the corporations to be more responsive to their customers.

[Edward]

Gee, we seem to have done pretty well with our government and mixed economy. Why would anybody want to take the risk of castrating the government and letting business run everything?

[crimethink]

I always suspected Dr Paul was a robot, but now that I see that picture with the top half of his head being slid off, I know for sure.

[Highway]

Warren reiterates the central issue, and I think Congressman Paul did a great job getting that information into this interview, that if government does begin to regulate, those corporations that people didn't trust in the first place are going to be the ones who spend the money and lobby the regulators to get favorable conditions.

[bourgeois cowboy]

"Gee, we seem to have done pretty well with our government and mixed economy. Why would anybody want to take the risk of castrating the government and letting business run everything?"

Businesses wouldn't run everything - the people who support them would.

[Baba Ram Dass]

I trust the government to regulate slightly more than the corporations that abused the laws in the first place.

So you believe the government passing more laws will prevent the corporations from abusing the very laws you want to pass more of? o_O

I trust neither corporations nor the government. But if I had to pick, it'd be corporations hands down. I can choose not to patronize a corporation or buy their products, but I can't choose a different government to obey.

I can sue a corporation if it infringes on my rights. I can sue the government too, but if I win, the taxpayers are the ones that have to flip the bill.

Corporations, for the most part, respond to market demand. Governments, for the most part, respond to special interests.

The ideal policy, of course, is to hold stockholders personally accountable. No more "limited liability". No more "legal entity" BS; you are personally responsible for your actions, whether at home or at work and you should have to deal with the consequences.

[Foxhunter]

Great presentation - I loved it. Asking questions on webcam was pretty damn cool, too. I don't have cable, so this is the first I've seen of G4. Another great clip for Paul.

Oh, and did he refer to Howard Dean as "John Dean"?

[Warren]

Oh, and did he refer to Howard Dean as "John Dean"?

DOH! Yes he did. Fortunately G4 viewers are way too young and politically ignorant to notice.

[Warren]

The ideal policy, of course, is to hold stockholders personally accountable. No more "limited liability". No more "legal entity" BS; you are personally responsible for your actions, whether at home or at work and you should have to deal with the consequences.

Whoa Baba Ram Dass. That's a pretty draconian prescription you're writing there. Is this a patent medicine of your own concoction? Are there others in the libertarian community that advocate this?

[Anthony]

The ideal policy, of course, is to hold stockholders personally accountable. No more "limited liability". No more "legal entity" BS; you are personally responsible for your actions, whether at home or at work and you should have to deal with the consequences.
__________________

Everyone already is responsible for their own actions personal actions. The corporate shield won't protect someone for their individual negligence or malfeasance. It will protect others in the corporation who are themselves innocent, but not the one who did bad.

Example: Lets say I am the majority stockholder in a corporation that operates a pizza delivery place. I also work there. I am delivering a pizza to a customer, and I run a red light and hit somebody elses vehicle. I am still personally responsible for the wreck, even though the corporation can be sued as well. However, the other stockholders, who had nothing to do with this, are not liable, except to the extent of their interests in the corporation.

[tarran]

Whoa Baba Ram Dass. That's a pretty draconian prescription you're writing there. Is this a patent medicine of your own concoction? Are there others in the libertarian community that advocate this?

It is one of the central tenets of Rothbardian Free Market Anarchism. Correction, every form of libertarian anarchism I have ever encountered thinks that the limited liability offered to owners of corporations is a bad idea.

So yes, this is the view of a significant portion of libertarians.

[Brian Sorgatz]

RON paUl PhOR pr351D3n7

But turn a calculator upside down, and you'll see that he's BOOBLESS!