Ron Paul

Ron Paul and Jon Stewart Have One of Those Weird, Respectful Political Discussions

|

For the first time in his 2012 presidential campaign, and the third time ever, Ron Paul visited The Daily Show on Sept. 26 where host Jon Stewart—who certainly leans left and tends to mock right—was endearingly respectful of the Texas Congressman; so much so that Stewart spent several minutes of the interview sarcastically urging Paul to advocate war with Iran and start flip-flopping on issues in order to get more media attention.

Certainly a little credit for Ron Paul's recent press goes to Stewart, who has mocked Paul, but earlier in August took some time to brilliantly rant that Paul was being treated like "the 13th floor in a hotel," even after he came in a close second in the Ames, Iowa straw poll. (Paul himself later hat-tipped Stewart.)

In the Monday interview Paul was genial—as was Stewart—and was his usual, earnest, mostly on-point self. It was nice to see him get more time and more relaxed format than having to cram lectures on sound money into seconds of debate time.

Paul said some overtly libertarian things such as "I fear the wars on drugs a lot more than I fear the drugs themselves." And Stewart pushed Paul on legalizing heroin (in a less contemptuous version of the GOP debate moderator's standby of "really, you believe that?") and his defense of pure capitalism.

One of Stewart's final questions, "So oppression is not okay for the federal level, but when your state wants to oppress you –?" was a good one because it showed Stewart not just interviewing in incredulous circles, and because it highlighted something even libertarians and mixed Paul sympathizers have worried over.

Around the internet, the third meeting of everyone's favorite liberal moderate populist and everyone's favorite libertarian Republican provoked different responses than Stewart's genuine respect for Paul's consistency. Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic somewhat sympathetically said the too-principled Paul can't get the nomination and wrote, (with some implied fears of a small government dystopia, or at least a mess):

One reason I'd be more comfortable voting for President Gary Johnson than President Ron Paul is that I've studied how he governed. In New Mexico, Gov. Johnson inherited a state that looked dramatically different than the one he'd have created if he was inventing things from scratch. But his principled skepticism of certain state agencies didn't result in a dysfunctional bureaucracy or a citizenry suddenly faced with pothole filled streets and garbage collecting on the sidewalks. 

Not all commentators were so delicate. The American Prospect's Paul Waldman is offended by the left's occasional Paul sympathies on issues like the Middle East or the drug war. So he got right down to it with the headline "Ron Paul, Crazy Person." Waldman's core objections are illustrated with this Paul quote from the The Daily Show interview:

The regulations are much tougher in a free market, because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people, and the failure has come that government wouldn't enforce this. In the Industrial Revolution there was a collusion and you could pollute and they got away with it. But in a true free market in a libertarian society you can't do that. You have to be responsible. So the regulations would be tougher.

Except that Paul also said in the interview:

I think the environment would be better protected by strict property rights…All you have to say is you have no right to pollute your neighbor's property, water, air, or anything and you wouldn't have the politicians writing the laws and exempting certain companies. They come, they write the laws, then they exempt themselves and then they trade permits to pollute the air.

You could get into some good libertarian debates about environmentalism (go ahead, commenters), but Paul was trying to define cronyism and did fairly well there, in a way that could potentially appeal to the more leftish. But Waldman preferred the previous quote which better fit his interpretation of Paul—who was obviously saying a world of low-to-no government would be a utopia.

Waldman concludes:

Paul is generally treated like the eccentric but cute uncle in the presidential race, and liberals favorably inclined toward Paul's views on defense and foreign policy are less likely to criticize him than they are some other Republican candidates. But we don't say often enough that his views about economics are every bit as bizarre and extreme as Michele Bachmann's views on the Rapture or Rick Perry's views on Social Security.

Finally, a September 27 Los Angeles Times post points to a new CNN poll and sums up just how baffled some people are by this Paul-is-serious-stuff:

If you are looking for signs of President Obama's vulnerability, there are plenty to be found in the latest CNN poll. But one number stands out: If that hypothetical election were held tomorrow, Obama would beat Ron Paul—yeah, that Ron Paul—by just four points.

Reason's long list of Ron Paul coverage. And for bonus hipster points: Matt Welch was annoyed that Tim Pawlenty (of all people) was taken more seriously than Paul back in May.

Advertisement

NEXT: Solyndra: Obama Warned Last Year, N.Y. Times Clueless Today

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But we don’t say often enough that his views about economics are every bit as bizarre and extreme as Michele Bachmann’s views on the Rapture or Rick Perry’s views on Social Security.

    First, what has Bachman ever said about the Rapture? And even if she did, does she plan to base any of her policies on it? Because currently we have a President who is basing his real life policies on ideas like “green jobs” that are just as detached from reality as The Rapture.

    And since when is calling a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme an extreme view?

    1. You’re letting facts get in the way of the narrative.

    2. The joke is on him: Ron Paul’s economic views are precisely as crazy as the idea the Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

      1. That is a good point. They always just dismiss this stuff. Well that is crazy. They don’t know and can’t explain why. They just know it is. It really is a pathetic intellectual existence.

      2. True. If you invested with Bernie Madoff, then died before turning 65, there is a chance your family might recover some of the stolen money.

        1. If you invested in Maddoff and figured out in say 2006 he was a crook, you could have gotten your money back. Some people in fact did. Good luck getting your SS taxes back.

          1. Yes. That’s my point. SS is worse than a Ponzi scheme.

      3. right…because in a genuine Ponzi scheme, people can choose to hand over their money. With SS, it is taken from them. That makes it so much better.

        1. Ron Paul’s economic views are precisely as crazy as the idea the Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

          I.e., not crazy.

          1. Hear that swooshing sound?

  2. What I don’t understand is how so-called intelligent people don’t realize they are being manipulated? It is sooooo obvious, even Jon Stewart notice this! People complain about the media not covering Ron Paul, but who is the media? Media is big corporations, and lobbyist! The same people who push politicians such as Perry and Romney (the statuesque), corporate puppets! This country will never be the land of the free home of the brave until people wise up! They better hurry because this country cannot keep supporting this corporate welfare and endless wars!
    Ron Paul 2012!

  3. Whatever – I have never watched Jon Stewart’s show, and don’t care what he thinks, any more than I give a shit what those comedians O’Reilly and Maddow (et al) say.

    The fact that so many people DO care what he says?

    *Dana Carvey as G.H.W. Bush voice* –
    “That’s SCARY! SCARY!”

    /Dana Carvey as GHW

    1. Your prerogative to ignore Stewart, but that contrast between Maddow interviewing Rand Paul and Jon Stewart interviewing Ron Paul is pretty impressive. Stewart can be insanely smug and lazy in his critiques and his interviews, but he did does not give the senior Paul the Maddow-esque circular, putting words in mouth extravaganza.

      1. Good for Stewart. But he is still a comedian whose job is to make people laugh meaning nothing he says should ever be taken seriously.

        1. yes, but does Stewart himself know he should not be taken seriously?

          1. Doubtful. But since I don’t listen to him, I don’t care.

          2. He will occasionally make noises to that effect in interviews. But I don’t watch his show, so I don’t know if he believes it or the hype imposed on him by his fandom.

          3. My take on this I get the feeling that Stewart wants to be the Gen X/Millennial equivalent of Will Rogers. Basically, a populist humorist with wry, witty and subtle observations of both culture and politics with his own unique brand of presentation.

            Unfortunately for Stewart, Rogers was and still is unparalleled in his ability to be taken seriously without trying to taken seriously. Rogers was a folksy humorist who appealed to many through a broad and non-confrontational manner that belied his shrewd observations. Stewart is funny at times, but I get the feeling his approach is schizophrenic and at times disingenuous trying to appear comedic and wanting secretly to taken seriously.

            1. With Stewart, it’s usually clear that there’s a political agenda underneath the humor, so it can be like being spoon-fed medicine that disguised with some sweetener.

            2. Plus, Stewart is about as subtle as a sack full of golfballs.

        2. Good for Stewart. But he is still a comedian whose job is to make people laugh meaning nothing he says should ever be taken seriously.

          I get that you don’t like Stewart, John- and I agree with with Ms. Steigerwald above you- but that’s a pretty myopic view of comedy.

        3. comediennes are the last true philosophers, and the best jokes are the ones that make us more aware of the truth.

      2. Actually, Maddow did an interview with Rand early in his campaign that was pretty respectful. Mind you, that mostly centered on his opposition to foreign intervention (Rand was soft peddaling his views on Iraq and Afghanistan at the time to placate KY voters but he was talking out against intervention in general) and his support for military cuts.

        That’s the only interview I saw.

        I’ve only heard reports about the second one where I understand she ambushed him with a question on and then put words in his mouth about the Civil Rights Act of 65.

      3. Certainly Jon Stewart has an obvious political bias, but for the most part he does not have a partisan “team blue” bias.

        And he’s at his best when lampooning media hypocrisy, of which the typical coverage of Ron Paul and his “crazy” ideas are a perfect example.

    2. My problem with Stewart’s interviewing style is that he using the fact that it’s a comedy show to an unfair advantage. He’ll make serious points and when his guest counters with serious points and gains the upperhand in the debate, Stewart will switch gears to comedian and get the audience involved as a distraction. It’s poor form and frustrating to watch.

      However, I will give this interview a look.

      1. He’s still better than the insufferable Colbert.

        1. He’s still better than Olberman, ORielly, Hannity, or Maddow, which is really really sad.

        2. I’ll probably check this out too, based on the report.

          I still think the lefty view of Stewart, et al, is to treat Paul softly enough to get him to run as a 3rd party candidate and split the opposition to Obama.

          I watched Paul on Colbert a couple of months ago and it was awful; Colbert treated Paul like a friendly old kooky gold bug uncle – clearly ridiculing him, but *nicely*. It *was* insufferable.

          1. That sounds a little conspiratal of you. I don’t doubt some people want this, but Jon Stewart genuinely respects (and categorically disagrees with) Ron Paul.

      2. I completely agree. But I think the Paul interview (as well as the why no love, media? rant) is well worth a watch.

    3. That is exactly why I mentioned Stewart!
      If Jon Stewart noticed how corporate media ignores Ron Paul, everyone should!
      Many people are waking up to the fact that our political leaders are pushed on us by the media, almost like the media chooses who it wants to win! The pushed Romney, when Romney wasn’t doing so good, they bring in Perry! When Perry mutilates the debate, and when people heard of his immigration policy, they rejected him! So now the powers that be is calling for Christy to run! If you have noticed the media only is positive if its one of their corporate puppets! I do have a few issues with Ron Paul, no candidate is perfect. But at least I know Ron paul is the real deal!

      1. Needs more exclamation marks.

        1. I can see my work here is done…

      2. Are you sure you are on the website my friend? lol

      3. You exclaimed eight times!!!!
        You animal!!!

        Me, I’m a multiple exclaimer.

  4. I am going to really enjoy going to the my local caucus this winter and voting for Paul

  5. “One reason I’d be more comfortable voting for President Gary Johnson than President Ron Paul is that I’ve studied how he governed.”

    Crazy thing, would he apply the same standard to the likes of Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain? None of them have governed anything, either.

    1. And hasn’t Paul been in the House for like 20 years? He hasn’t exactly stormed the floor and taken people hostage.

      And what exactly did the black Jesus govern before 2008? Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt except those outside the club. They are viewed as suspect.

      1. Can’t remember where, but Michelle Obama was refered to as a “hospital executive”. So getting a seat on a hospital board in Chicago because your husband is connected makes you an “executive”. It’s a childish make believe.

        1. Yeah, a position apparently so critical that it was created once Barack got some local political power, paid her a ton of dough, and then was eliminated once she left for DC. Odd, that.

        2. Chelsea Clinton was apparently just named to the IAC board of directors. Because of her vast experience and qualifications.

          WTF?

          1. This really needs to be explained? Connections matter. Connections can be bought.

            I believe before (still?) she had a position at a hedge fund as an analyst. That was laughable. Just say she’s there to rope investors.

            1. This is sickening.

      2. I get what you’re saying, and I do resent the implication that a world with Ron Paul in the White House would be a pothole-riddled wasteland.

        That being said, I think it’s a legitimate point that many people don’t know what to make of Paul’s idealism, and Johnson’s more pragmatic approach to libertarianism–along with an actual executive record–can assuage people’s fears of a Wild West libertarian future. Remember that WE (i.e. libertarians and Reason-readers) aren’t the ones who need to be convinced; folks like Friedersdorf are.

        1. And just to clarify, I support both Paul AND Johnson, and think it unnecessary to pick one or the other at this point. So please don’t interpret my comment above as an endorsement of Johnson at the expense of Paul.

          1. Agreed. Either one can get the nomination and I’d pull the lever for them. My preference is Paul but Johnson would do just fine.

        2. That is why Johnson has a higher ceiling than Paul. When people pull the “you must be crazy” card, Johnson can say “I was governor of a state and the world didn’t end”. It is a lot harder to paint Johnson as a nut than it is Paul. But sadly there was only room for one libertarian candidate in the race. And Paul already had the base of support.

          1. There are 3000* people alive because Paul is competent and not crazy.

            *no idea the actual number, plus, yeah, a bunch of them would have been born without his help, as people general got born before Docs existed. But point still stands.

            1. True enough. But these are crazy times. The doctor is nuts and the Marxist community organizer is the height of erudition.

            2. You forgot to account for the ones who have since died. I don’t know if it’s a large number, but statistically, some of the people he helped deliver must be dead by now.

          2. I think thats why a Paul/Johnson ticket would be ideal. With Paul as President you get the benefit of a man with conviction and a dash of statesmanship that comes from being very constitent over the course of three decades. With Paul, you get the benefit of a man who has held executive power, is pragmatic, and when Paul leaves office, either because of illness, end of term, or whatever, can assume the mantale of chief executive and continue carrying the bannaer of liberty.

            1. I mean Johnshon for the second portion, whish this thread supported an edit function.

            2. I mean Johnshon for the second portion, wish this thread supported an edit function.

            3. I like it. Paul/Johnson for a term or two, then Johnson/The other Paul for a couple of terms, then Other Paul/someone else.

              I wonder if, if Paul’s policies were actually implemented (Fed goes away, drug war goes away, DOE goes away, etc.) and the world didn’t end, and in fact things got better for most people, people would notice that it was better and support a genuinely limited government, knowing how much the alternative sucks?

            4. I like it. Paul/Johnson for a term or two, then Johnson/The other Paul for a couple of terms, then Other Paul/someone else.

              I wonder if, if Paul’s policies were actually implemented (Fed goes away, drug war goes away, DOE goes away, etc.) and the world didn’t end, and in fact things got better for most people, people would notice that it was better and support a genuinely limited government, knowing how much the alternative sucks?

              1. Double squirrels!
                Double squirrels!

                1. I thought Paul was *too* pragmatic – isn’t he always being criticized for adding benefits for his district to the budget bills before voting against them? Yet the narrative is that Johnson is the pragmatist, and Paul is either crazy or a hypocrite.

              2. “I wonder if, if Paul’s policies were actually implemented (Fed goes away, drug war goes away, DOE goes away, etc.) and the world didn’t end, and in fact things got better for most people, people would notice that it was better and support a genuinely limited government, knowing how much the alternative sucks?”

                Love the “if, if” combination.
                Sweet.

        3. My hometown is pothole-infested, and yet, somehow, the big-government types have controlled the city administration for years. Libertarian saboteurs must be sneaking around at night breaking up the roads.

    2. I would be far more comfortable with Johnson too.

      That is one reason why I won’t be voting for Bachman or Gingrich in the primary. It was a legitimate criticism of Obama 3 years ago – and he has indeed proven to be a truly terrible executive.

      Herman Cain was CEO of a large corporation and is exempted from “legislators only” group in my mind.

    3. Crazy thing, would he apply the same standard to the likes of Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain? None of them have governed anything, either.

      Eh, being Speaker of the House is actually close to governing something. More so than being a back-bencher.

      Having a leadership position means having to compromise and so forth.

  6. We shouldn’t have big government, just government that is able to determine which bit of air belongs to whom, and to provide a forum for suits when one’s particular bit of air is poisoned by someone else.

    When you realize that the court system must be vastly larger than it is to take the place of a regulatory state, RP’s society isn’t less government, it’s just government that is less efficient and less accessible to average people.

    1. Is it Thursday yet ?

    2. Yeah because the regulatory state never results in court cases. Jesus your fucking stupid Tony.

    3. Hey, look everybody. Tony misrepresented his opponent’s position. Who ever thought that would happen?

    4. Re: The stoopid in Amerika,

      When you realize that the court system must be vastly larger than it is to take the place of a regulatory state[…]

      As if courts did not end disentangling the mess created by the regulators and the regulations. You just showcase your stoopidity for all to see, for no reason I can discern except maybe that you are too stoopid to realize what you do.

    5. We shouldn’t have big government, just government that is able to determine which bit of air belongs to whom, and to provide a forum for suits when one’s particular bit of air is poisoned by someone else.

      Yeah because the large and getting larger by the day government in place has this problem all figured out. Remember the time that law got passed and every last bit of air pollution went away the next day?

      When you realize that the court system must be vastly larger than it is to take the place of a regulatory state, RP’s society isn’t less government, it’s just government that is less efficient and less accessible to average people.

      When the government courts grind to a halt (not like this isn’t already happening in your Governtopia) society, as contrasted with government will probably develop alternative methods for resolving these issues. This will further weaken your “justice system” as currently configured.

      I hope the student loans you racked up weren’t too large. That cushy government job you covet might not be there like you had hoped!

      1. We have courts, we have a regulatory state, there is still pollution.

        Ergo, getting rid of all that means there wouldn’t be pollution. (Except we’d still need courts. Lots more of them.)

        Why didn’t I find libertarianism sooner!

        I didn’t take any student loans because I got a full ride to college. (College is that place people go to unlearn the libertarianism they picked up in middle school.)

        1. Tony’s debate strategy:

          -Come up with non-falsiable hypothetical (“We would need more courts”, “the bailouts prevented the next great depression”).

          -Repeat ad nauseum.

          -???

          -profit.

          1. However, Tony wouldn’t want to earn a profit. He just likes to look like a fool.

          2. Are you suggesting that transferring the duties of the regulatory state to the tort system would possibly require fewer, or the same amount, of courts we have today?

            1. Are you suggesting that courts are the only means of civil dispute resolution?

            2. Yes, they would supplant the current burden on the courts that the regulatory state places. There may be an uptick of a percentage or two, but even this would be small compared to the resources freed up by reducing regulatory agencies/the regulatory state.

            3. Yes, because there would be exponentially fewer pieces of arbitrary B.S. for the government to ream businesses and individuals with. Also, the absence of excessive regulation combined with increased individual liability will ensure contracts would be clearer and argeements would be less subject to arbitrary changes in law. Thus reduced burden on the tort system.

              Moreover, courts could spend all their time defining what constitutes a violation of one’s individual rights instead of constantly monitoring arbitrary changes to the law and understanding every piece of the regulatory code, and then applying that code consistently with other cases. Without that distraction, they could build a general consensus upon which to determine whether future lawsuits are frivolous or not. They do that already, regardless of whether the action in conflict was covered by regulation or not.

              1. I don’t get it. Courts take too much direction from legislatures now, and should rule more based on principles? If there isn’t a law (a regulatory code) that says you can’t pollute (or commit any other crime), then what legally recognized harm has anyone suffered?

                Courts are less accountable to people’s wishes than legislatures and can be bought off just as easily. No improvement whatsoever, unless you happen to be a polluting company and we’re talking about your revenue, less expenses.

                1. You really are full of shit, Tony. I never said there couldn’t be a law against pollution – it’s covered plenty in “thou shalt not destroy or damage thy neighbor’s property without their explicit permission” and “thou shalt not cause death or egregious harm to thy neighbor’s body without their explicit permission.” If you do these things, whether as an individual or in the name of a company, you are fully civilly and potentially criminally liable.

                  Speaking for myself as a miniarchist, I’m not inherently anti-regulation. I’m anti-regulation that goes beyond the basic scope of protecting core rights and devolves into pure arbitrary bullshit. If laws clarify along the basis of harmful actions, legislatures and courts can check each others’ interpretations of these core principles.

                  But it’s patently absurd if you believe environmental law will be able to predict, quantify and prevent all measurable environmental harm in any society (not to mention general business fraud). You can’t honestly expect every individual, business, lawyer, regulator and judge to know every aspect of environmental, business, health, labor and tax law when the code is hundreds of thousands of pages long and administered differently federally, in states and locally. “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse”, but not even one person in Congress passing the law knows the law as a whole either. Nor do judges, or regulators, etc. So you have regulators who focus on some arbitrary aspect in some hidden corner of some 10,000 page long law and enforce that with enormous fines against businesses. And then you wonder why there are no jobs?

                  How about getting rid of state incorporation and setting a minimum level of quantifiable, direct harm (say, $500) necessary to bring a tort or criminal charges against an individual or affiliated group of individuals responsible for the action, and then watch how much more careful individuals and businesses will be to protect their own wealth and avoid causing harm? Business liability is a marketable asset, and regulation will occur from private insurance entities with an interest in avoiding damages payouts and who set rates based upon past performance?

                  Moreover, I’d argue the case for centralized government regulation is further vanquished by the fact that advancements in technology have made business secrets virtually impossible to keep for very long. Customers are able to speak up when they are harmed by a business easier than ever, and desire to avoid damage to a business’s reputation becomes a deterrent to causing harm. Whistleblowers inside businesses reveal corruption and fraud and it becomes instantly public and permanent. Boycotts, strikes, etc. are easier to organize than ever (and with very little ability for business to crack down because it can be organized via social networks instead of at the workplace.) A business that practices racial discrimination is completely ostracized by the media and the public. Investors know which companies to invest in and which to avoid without government help.

                  So the need for overarching regulation becomes less because consumer information is better than ever. Better than government regulation ever could have possibly made it, in fact. And it was all done via the free market – and improves competition instead of stifling it like top-down regulations that create barriers to entry for smaller businesses and thus inadvertently cause “too big to fail” oligarchies.

                  1. And here’s where, on cue, Tony will stop replying to this part of the discussion and will move down the list, because Prop just shut him the fuck down.

                    1. I know. That’s just how he rolls. I’ve been here many, many times before. Someday I’ll learn.

                  2. I almost made the egregious mistake of washing my car in a Southern California town. Apparently I was liable to a $2800 fine. If the water from the car ran off into the property at which I was staying it would have been fine. But, it wouldn’t have. It would have run into the storm sewer system running along the road.

                    This is a problem because they don’t want the dirt I picked up from their roads being washed into the sewers that run along those same roads. Of course any rainfall would have washed the same dirt my car picked up into the same pristine storm sewers. But, that’s okay. The intermediate step of it being on my car makes it a pollutant.

                    And, if I failed to pay the fine I would have to go to jail. Because ‘befehl ist befehl’.

    6. FUCK!!!

      I was just starting to enjoy the comments and Tony lets out another big fat smelly brain fart.

      SHUT THE FUCK UP!!

      I have a new theory: Tony is a creation of the Reason staff. His purpose is to make one of us crack, renounce free speech, and demand censorship.

      Listening to Tony is intellectual waterboarding. Be strong my brothers and sisters.

  7. “Matt Welch was annoyed that Tim Pawlenty (of all people) was taken more seriously than Paul back in May.”

    Boo-fucking-hoo.

  8. just government that is able to determine which bit of air belongs to whom,

    That’s not hard: the air over my land.

    to provide a forum for suits when one’s particular bit of air is poisoned by someone else.

    What a relief. We already have this.

    When you realize that the court system must be vastly larger than it is to take the place of a regulatory state,

    Why? It wasn’t vastly larger back before the regulatory state.

    The purpose of Paul’s property-rights approach isn’t to replicate the regulatory state, only this time with black robes. Its to eliminate most of it, and only keep those bits necessary to compensate actual people for actual harm proximately caused by other actual people.

    1. That’s not hard: the air over my land.

      Ooookay. Once you realize what bullshit this is, given the fact that air is mobile, doesn’t the rest kind of fall apart?

      1. No. It belongs to you while it is there. The air that is over your land is yours. So that means when I pollute it, I owe you damages. And when the pollution rolls over to your neighbor, I owe him damages too.

        1. Do you actually believe this?

          1. Not only him, but most common law; it’s called the “ad caelum” doctrine and it’s the basis for ownership theory dealing with minerals (and emerging theories of wind rights).

        2. I mean just think of the vast scope government would have to have to manage this type of thing.

          You have to appreciate that regulations before the abuse happens are more efficient, not to mention more conservative of the environment. In fact the ONLY reason to prefer a tort system is because more abuse can go unpunished that way.

          1. It wouldn’t take any scope of government you fucking half wit. I just sue you in court. It is called the common law. It is how it worked for 500 hears.

            1. It wouldn’t take any scope of government you fucking half wit. I just sue you in court.

              And while I’m at it, keep my government hands off your Medicare?

              1. You are comically fucking retarded Tony. It would be really funny if it wasn’t so sad. You honestly don’t understand the connection between courts and the regulatory state or how the common law world. You are so ignorant, there is no way to even start to educate you.

                1. Oh I’m sorry I didn’t realize the courts weren’t a part of government. Thank you for enlightening me. And I totally deserve all the name calling and vulgarity, as I’m apparently too ignorant to realize that the courts are separate from government.

                  1. Of course they are part of the government. But private parties seeking redress amongst themselves in court is a completely different paradigm than the regulatory state. Think hard and maybe you can figure out why.

                    1. Yeah it’s different because it is an after-the-fact redress rather than a prevention of harm in the first place (meaning it’s worse for people and the environment, check).

                      It’s paid by the same taxes though. So equal there.

                      Let’s see, why would it be better again? Oh yeah, because quite simply it wouldn’t be able to handle every single grievance in a regulation free state, and you’d get away with more criminal behavior. That’s why.

                    2. Let’s see, why would it be better again? Oh yeah, because quite simply it wouldn’t be able to handle every single grievance in a regulation free state, and you’d get away with more criminal behavior. That’s why.

                      Actually, no. Do a little research into polution in the industrial revolution. The court system kept it largely in check, until businesses bribed government to declare them immune from lawsuits in “the common good”. Pollution skyrocketed, so politicians pandered votes by proposing regulation of the problem that they caused in the first place.

                      So a government taking on power (i.e. relaxing strict limits) is the reason pollution got so bad that people felt they needed regulations.

                      More government is always the proposed solution to government fuckups.

                2. This is precisely why government is in my future career plans! My unchecked mental issues in no way will hold back my ambitions….in many ways my “illness” is beneficial.

                  1. Wouldn’t the other issue be that for most people the costs to go to court would be far less than the costs of the pollution.

                    Also, it can be hard to prove especially with air pollution exactly who is resonsibly for what pollution.

                    I think you could certainly get some regulation to protect people without having the overreach you have now.

                    1. Wouldn’t the other issue be that for most people the costs to go to court would be far less than the costs of the pollution.

                      How on Earth could you know how much it would cost to go to court in that circumstance?

                    2. Are you really telling me it’s not possible to estimate the cost of going to court?

                      I’m sure that most law firms could give you an estimate based on the type of case and the specifics.

                      It’s also possible to make estimates of the costs of different types of pollution. Say for example the added healthcare costs from smog, or the crop damage etc.

                    3. Are you really telling me it’s not possible to estimate the cost of going to court?

                      In a legal system using the non-agression principle as the only basis for laws? For one, you wouldn’t need law school to properly represent yourself. That’d be a factor. If you can give me an estimate, I’d love to see it. Also, are you ruling out class action?

                    4. So, you chose not to hire big lawyers, but your opponenet does. Most likely you lose.

                      Class action does offer some remedies, but I don’t think fixes the whole problem.

                      SOME regulations make both consumers and business better off.

                    5. What good would a big lawyer do when the laws are simple?

                      “You got chemical runoff on my land. Here’s a picture and here are the results chemical tests done by a third party consultant. The itemized cleaning estimate is attached. In addition, I am asking for compensation for time spent in the legal process, billed at my average hourly income.”

                      What’s the problem? There are no loopholes or immunities for a lawyer to apply. Those are the things that caused the regulatory state in the first place. They would be gone along with the regulations. It’s the only way it can work.

                    6. Too bad it doesn’t work that way.

                    7. It used to. And it could again, if the will was sufficient. Though with the current indoctrination/detention center we stick our youth in daily, it is highly unlikely.

        3. It belongs to you while it is there. The air that is over your land is yours.

          I don’t think this makes sense. Firstly, there’s a big problem with explaining how such ownership would come about. It doesn’t seem like mixing-of-labour type accounts are going to work here. Secondly, how far up does your stake go? Can planes fly over your land? If you live near the equator do you own the Sun for the few minutes it’s directly overhead? Does your stake also go downwards, claiming a wedge of the Earth? It just seems bizarre.

          1. It only seems bizare because apparently you don’t know anything about property rights.

            “Secondly, how far up does your stake go?”

            It depends. Most places do not let you control flyover rights but you could. And if you own something like a light easement, you can actually own the sun that goes across your neighbor’s property.

            “Does your stake also go downwards, claiming a wedge of the Earth?”

            Yes. They are called mineral rights.

            Jesus tap dancing Christ. Everyone in this country ought to have to take a property law course. The fucking ignorance on this subject is just appalling.

            1. The “wedge” extending from the center of the earth to the top of the atmosphere is unrealistic. Natural property ownership has boundaries in three dimensions. Someone else could own and mine the resources directly below your house without affecting your property- the volume of space that you are actually protecting and using. If you don’t control the airspace above your house, its not yours.

              1. Re: Colonel Angus,

                Someone else could own and mine the resources directly below your house without affecting your property[…]

                They can get away with that only if they don’t suddenly come face to face with the enormous explosive mine I buried for just such a case.

              2. “Colonel_Angus|9.27.11 @ 5:19PM|#

                The “wedge” extending from the center of the earth to the top of the atmosphere is unrealistic. Natural property ownership has boundaries in three dimensions. ”

                I didn’t really need to but I pulled out my old Geometry text.

                Euclid says the “wedge” exists in 3 dimensions so our plan is still “GO”.

          2. I think the edge of the troposphere would be a nice margin. If an airline wants to run a victor airway above you property, they could pay you a fee. The lower the flights, the higher the fee.

          3. Simply put it’s like this (as far as i’m concerned).

            People do not “own” the air. But people do *own* the pollution they caused, because they produced it through labor. Therefor they cannot disown it out of convenience if the result of their labour travels off their property and harms another person or his property.

            Just like you can shoot a bullet from YOUR gun into YOUR property, but you have the responsibility if YOUR bullet travels off your property and harms another’s body or property. The same with pollution.

            1. To put it simple: You don’t NEED to own air, water or any similar substance for pollutants to be forever responsible for the damage they case.
              Because pollutants OWN *their pollution* by default, and therefor also the damage it causes.

      2. Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

        Once you realize what bullshit this is, given the fact that air is mobile, doesn’t the rest kind of fall apart?

        It may be mobile, you stupid sack of shit, but once the pollutants spread they become harmless. What matters is the immediate CONCENTRATION around the polluter’s property, which can serve for a liability case against him or her if the adjacent properties are affected.

        But, of course, you want NO industry, just people clad in sheepskins, hunting for food with rocks.

        1. once the pollutants spread they become harmless.

          If only jaw-dropping stupidity did the same.

          1. Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

            If only jaw-dropping stupidity did the same.

            Unfortunately, no: YOU have staying power, stoopid.

        2. I don’t get why this is so hard for libertarians to say: if you knowingly poison someone, that’s an assault. You should go to jail. You should pay the victim recompense. You’re not allowed to throw meat cleavers over my fence either. This is not a hard question for libertarianism.

          1. You are not allowed to throw pollution over the fence either. It is called a trespass and is actionable. And indeed, if you knowingly let poison into your neighbors land and it killed him, you might under some circumstances have committed a crime.

          2. Re: The Ingenious (doubtful) Hidalgo,

            I don’t get why this is so hard for libertarians to say: if you knowingly poison someone, that’s an assault. You should go to jail.

            Who has argued otherwise, wiseass? Please don’t pull a Tony on us; it’s unbecoming of you.

            1. Okay, sorry. I thought we had a disagreement here.

      3. When a farmer in Iowa gets stupid in the spring; sprays 2-4D indiscriminately on a windy day; and then wipes out a vineyard a mile away, the authorities have little difficulty tracking down the doofus.

        The problem isn’t has hard as you make it out to be.

        1. So explain why so many of you deal with the issue of air pollution by just hand-waving the very notion away?

          1. I already regret spending any time conversing with this cock-sucking puppet, but here goes.

            As I understand Iowa law, if drift from a farmer’s field causess financial damage, then the farmer is liable for the actual value of the damage. This means that the party that suffered the damage has to sue the farmer in civil court.

            THIS IS EXACTLY THE WAY THAT LIBERTARIANS SAY THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!

            Under the “progressive” regulatory model, there would be a thousand pages of rules that explain how, and when, and under what meteorological conditions the farmer is allowed to spray under. And a small army of regulators would inspect every fucking farmer in the state. And when the inevitable shit happens and someone still experiences a loss of some kind, there will be handwringing and new regulations and all sorts of regultory shuffle to prevent it from ever happening again. And when the poor bastard that suffered the loss goes to court against the farmer that caused the loss, then the farmer will use the regulatory regime as a defense because he/she was full compliant with the rule and the time the incident occurred.

            So go fuck yourself you dishonest prick.

            1. So explain how someone suffering from flooding in Bangladesh can receive redress for an American company adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

              1. So go fuck yourself you dishonest prick

              2. So explain how someone suffering from flooding in Bangladesh can receive redress for an American company adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

                What does that have to do with pollution?

                1. Hey MNG come here and help me move these goalposts.

                2. He’s saying that global warming caused by American CO2 caused flooding in Bangladesh… except that CO2 does NOT raise air temperature, and that the entire subject of climate change has been proven a fraud.

              3. Tony, when you stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, we’ll let you be the first in line to condemn everyone else’s pollution.

              4. Well since the US is not the only country with CO2 emitting industries, at the very least the redress would have to be divided up between NAFTA, the EU/EFTA, Russia, India, China, Brazil, Japan, etc etc…

                In any event, climate change has to do with the “global” commons – the issues we’re more concerned with in this post – and what Ron Paul addressed in his interview – has to do with local/smaller scale pollution/contamination. Libertarians may deny that emissions cause damage to the global atmospheric system which has broad climatological and ecological ramifications, but they do not deny that smog and and toxic chemicals can cause distress in the short term.

                Although, as Old Mexican stated, some people (many people) accept poorer air quality as a trade-off for living in their desired location (see: 8.5 million in NYC).

              5. By proving it first.

                Which will not be happening, since the proof of man-made global warming itself, much less *specific* impacts on individuals, is a fairy tale, much like happiness as a result of socialism.

                1. Uncle Joe…apparently Stalin was happy under socialism, and I’ve seen pictures of Castro, and he looked happy.

        2. But how do you deal with air pollution from vehicles, minus a regulatory system?

    2. Tony doesn’t view a person as an actual person, he views everyone as a whole.

      1. STEVE SMITH VIEW EVERYONE AS HOLE!!!!

  9. The regulations are much tougher in a free market, because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people, and the failure has come that government wouldn’t enforce this. In the Industrial Revolution there was a collusion and you could pollute and they got away with it. But in a true free market in a libertarian society you can’t do that. You have to be responsible. So the regulations would be tougher.

    I saw the interview, and the question posited by Stewart was something like: “Can one trust more a private organization to provide safety and security, who’s accountable only to their stockholders, compared to a public institution accountable to voters?”

    The answer to that is: “John, all private companies like the one that carries your show are answerable to their consumers, not only stickholders. If you fail your customers, you lose market share to your competitors. This happens much quicker than you think, as the price system and profit-loss test can deliver the picture in a matter of weeks or days. Instead, when it comes to public institutions, accountability only comes when the other team takes over, for which you need a majority of votes. By then, the damage is already done and quite irreversible.”

    It is unfortunate that Paul did not address his question in this matter, as RP has made the same point many times before, correctly: The market is MUCH QUICKER in punishing the bad performers, the cheats and the corrupt, than government.

    1. That is exactly what he should have said. You can’t stay in business killing your customers.

    2. Yet we have a regulatory state AND pollution, including an essentially unchecked license to oil and coal producers and consumers to radically alter the chemical makeup of the planet’s atmosphere. All of this from the most profitable industries the world has ever known. Why is the market not making them accountable? Could it be because your formulation is complete and utter bullshit–that without some state apparatus to protect the commonly held environment, private interests are happy to pollute it if it means more profits?

      You believe in a fantasy and are justifying huge amounts of abuse of human beings on that fantastical premise.

      1. tony,
        your sainted Bureau of Checked and Unchecked Licenses signed off on oil and coal when permits were issued. Jesus, dude; life is not a risk-free endeavor. EVERY business venture involves some risk to someone somewhere at some time. The “state apparatus” is a political patronage/make work program for people unable to cut it in the private sector. And without the private sector, the public would not get to live fat and happy on salaries and pensions paid for by us.

        This is the apparatus that shut down CA farmland over some critter of no importance; the one that would not allow a solar farm in the freaking Mojave Desert; the mindset that stopped windmill farms on the Eastern seaboard; the same one that has made public schools a punch line.

        1. Why don’t you go up to a soldier or firefighter and ask him if he thinks he could “cut it” in the private sector.

          Sorry, I don’t buy the argument that “life isn’t fair, therefore people should be able to cause whatever manner of harm they want as long as they make a profit.”

          1. The DoD is only 20% of the overall federal budget. Not that I think it shouldn’t suffer some budget cuts, but the vast majority of government jobs are are bureaucrats and technocrats. Hell, even in the DoD combat troops are the minority.

          2. I’d sure as hell pay soldiers and firefighters voluntarily, and you seem pretty keen on them, so from my sample of two I infer that soldiers and firefighters would do quite well in the private sector.

            1. Not to mention that fighting fires and protecting the country or some of the few aspects of government that are legitimate. When people gripe about taxes they aren’t griping about the portion that goes to pay the fire fighters and soldiers.

              1. But that’s not a principle, that’s a cop-out. You don’t talk about soldiers and firefighters because they don’t fit the stereotype of government bureaucrats you have, even though that’s exactly what they are.

                1. bureaucrats

                  You keep using that word….

                  /oblig

              2. “k2000k|9.27.11 @ 5:11PM|#

                Not to mention that fighting fires and protecting the country or some of the few aspects of government that are legitimate”

                I’m a firefighter, but I disagree.

                Soldiers are a legitimate expenditure. Firefighters are not. Privatizing Fire/EMS (Emergency Medical) would be one of the easier privatizations in our utopia.

          3. Cool! Cuz no one is making that argument.

          4. Why do you switch “Soldier or firefighter” out for “BLM bureaucrat” when you’re asking questions like that?

            1. Because thats the only way he can justify his stupid argument.

        2. EVERY business venture involves some risk to someone somewhere at some time.

          Right, but that doesn’t mean that when undertaking a business venture you have the right to risk other people – people not involved in the transaction, and who haven’t consented to your risking their property or health. That doesn’t seem very libertarian.

          1. Re: The Ingenious Hidalgo,

            Right, but that doesn’t mean that when undertaking a business venture you have the right to risk other people – people not involved in the transaction, and who haven’t consented to your risking their property or health.

            Who the fuck does that – besides the government?

            1. Um, every company that has ever released any pollutant into the atmosphere?

              1. Re: Stoopid, worthless piece of crap,

                Um, every company that has ever released any pollutant into the atmosphere?

                Ohh, don’t tell me – ANY pollutant would mean anything YOU believe is a “pollutant”?

                By the way, particles only become “pollutants” in concentration, you worthless piece of shit – just so you know. A factory that releases dust at low concentration is NOT polluting. Even YOU when releasing your icky skin cells in your own house is not polluting your own environment, unless you happen to chafe heavily, thus making it unbearable for your cats.

      2. OOhhh! That is military grade spoof embarassment.

        I expect more from Tony spoofers!

      3. Wait – we had a post about this several months ago – but aren’t coal/oil/energy industries actually quite inefficient in terms of ratios of income-to-profit? I believe it’s tech companies that make the most profit in terms of percentage of how much money they bring in or whatever.

        Also – these industries are heavily subsidized (and not just through “tax breaks”).

      4. Re: Stoopid ranter in Amerika,

        Yet we have a regulatory state AND pollution, including an essentially unchecked license to oil and coal producers and consumers to radically alter the chemical makeup of the planet’s atmosphere.

        “Radically”? You’re a boob. Not only that, a stoopid, ignorant boob. You have NO IDEA, NO CLUE, of the VASTNESS of the volumetric size of the atmosphere, NONE.

        Why is the market not making them accountable?

        Who told you, you imbecile, that the market WANTS to make them “accountable” of something people already accept and factor in as part of living in an industrialized country? You’re an idiot.

        Not only that: an ignorant idiot. The worst kind.

        People like living in the city, despite the noise. Why? Because they value the city life more than a noiseless environment. Same with energy use and pollution: People like the energy more than they like ultra-clean air. So FUCK YOU!

        1. the VASTNESS of the volumetric size of the atmosphere

          OMG, find your nearest university… the scientists haven’t figured out that the atmosphere can’t possibly be altered by human activity because it’s SO FREAKIN HUGE. You’re on the Nobel shortlist, gotta be.

          1. Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

            OMG, find your nearest university

            Listen, you worthless waste of skin: YOU were the one that used the heavily loaded word “radically,” not the scientists.

            FUCK YOU!!!

            1. Radical is a relative term… I’d define any significant alteration of the chemical makeup of the environment from what the human species has known during its entire existence as “radical.” Which is to say, on this issue, environmentalists are clearly the conservatives, and oil companies and their unpaid shills the radicals.

              1. Re: Stoopid backpedaling boob,

                Radical is a relative term…

                Yep – stoopid backpedaling boob.

                1. It’s amazing how the libertarians here can’t respond to Tony’s intelligent arguments and just keep typing ‘stoopid’ and ‘boob’ hoping no one notices they haven’t a clue about running a country.

      5. Yet we have a regulatory state AND pollution,

        Yet, somehow, this realization doesn’t lead to Tony to question his conclusion that the regulatory state is the only way to control pollution.

        1. Letting people pollute with impunity doesn’t seem like it would work too well.

          1. Good, then you will be committing seppeku shortly.

            Go tell the ChiComs and the Norks that their blatant pollution is wrong and irresponsible and see how far you get. In the meantime, you get to slicing while the productive sector gets to drilling, digging and fracking.

      6. “Yet we have a regulatory state AND pollution, including an essentially unchecked license to oil and coal producers and consumers to radically alter the chemical makeup of the planet’s atmosphere.”

        If that’s the case, what exactly are you advocating that is different?

    3. The market is MUCH QUICKER in punishing the bad performers, the cheats and the corrupt, than government.

      Indeed OM. Government specializes in enabling bad actors much more often than the market does. The market may miss a few bad actors (read: cheats, charlatans, and scoundrels), but certainly will not overlook and outright collude with them out of expediency as pervasively and purposefully as government does.

      1. A free market won’t recognize the common environment AT ALL. You can’t wish away externalities just because they makes your world too complicated.

        1. Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

          Externality: The refuge of the economics-illiterate boob.

          1. What a fascinating argument.

            1. Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

              You couldn’t care less about arguments, you boob – I presented you with evidence that “externalities” are already taken into account in markets as markets are Pareto efficient. Fuck off!

              1. You’re describing an idealized market, not one that could exist in the real world, which will always be hampered by factors such as externalities.

                You’re saying externalities can’t exist because externalities don’t exist because you say so.

                1. Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

                  You’re describing an idealized market, not one that could exist in the real world, which will always be hampered by factors such as externalities.

                  Oh, you mean the hampered market? Yeah, I agree – when hampered by the government, externalities are sometimes NOT taken into account. I am glad you’re starting to see the light, stoopid sockpuppet.

                2. Good thing government action never produces unintended consequences or externalities.

        2. and yet, the single biggest polluter by far in this country is the United States government.

        3. Are you channeling Choad now with your EXTERNALITES!!!11!!one! shrill harpyness?

          Tony, you are expelling CO2. And given no doubt your propensity for hyperventilation and hand-wringing, your are producing CO2 at a faster rate than I am. That is an externality. You are impeding on my air. I demand, for the sake of your consistency, and the appeal to my own authority as a physician, that you commit seppeku immediately. I’ll even pay you. Your scabby little cult of eco-theology compels you to comply.

          How’s that for recognizing the “common environment?”

          1. Pretty fucking stupid. My CO2 production is part of the natural carbon cycle. We are taking carbon out of the geosphere and putting it into the atmosphere, which is different. It’s not a cult, it’s basic fucking physics.

            1. We are taking carbon out of the geosphere and putting it into the atmosphere, which is different.

              This is different from volcanic activity how? Because it involves human labor and activity?

              It’s not a cult

              Pardon me, religion. Happy?

              it’s basic fucking physics.

              Of which you have demonstrated a woeful lack of understanding, beyond “I don’t like fossil fuels. They’re icky! Because I said so! EXTERNALITIES!!!!1!!1!”

              1. Okay… Volcanic activity does contribute to a greenhouse effect, but volcanic activity also produces a “haze effect” or a cooling effect as a result of increasing concentrations of sulfur-rich gases. This effect is actually more pronounced than the greenhouse effect caused by volcanic activity.

                Human greenhouse gas contributions, however, are at about 150 times the rate of volcanic activity.

                1. All of which have been debunked.

                  “Haze effect” has been rendered demonstrably false. Sulfurous gases have shown no cooling or heating within the strata of the atmosphere.

                  I’ll need a cite for the 150 time rate. Mt. Pinatubo alone spit out more “greenhouse gases” than human activity has.

                  1. Pinatubo created the largest sulfur oxide cloud in the 20th century, creating about a 1 degree cooling effect.

                    I’m not sure where you’re getting this debunked claim… It’s pretty established that sulfur aerosols reflect solar radiation. Humans emit sulfur in addition to CO2, causing both warming and cooling (but the side effect of adding sulfur is acid rain).

                2. “Human greenhouse gas contributions, however, are at about 150 times the rate of volcanic activity”. You are a god damned, fucking moron.

                  1. Volcanic CO2 130 megatonnes.
                    Human CO2 something like 32 gigatonnes.

        4. “A free market won’t recognize the common environment AT ALL. You can’t wish away externalities just because they makes your world too complicated.”

          It’s almost as if you’ve never read about, thought about, or even discussed with anyone, any of your ideas.

    4. Government has now taken on the role of preventing bad performers from being punished.

    5. Libertarianism and the free market is a total package. RP simply doesn’t have or GET the time to explain everything in detail, everytime.

      The problem with an ideal that is both moral as well as rational, is that to explain it rationally requires time logic and patience, whereas ideals based on nothing but base emotions (such as envy) require nothing more than one-liners like “rich people should pay their fair share.”

  10. All you have to say is you have no right to pollute your neighbor’s property, water, air, or anything and you wouldn’t have the politicians writing the laws and exempting certain companies.

    Wouldn’t that make pretty difficult to have any industry? How many ppms is considered “pollution”? It’s pretty hard to prove damages. Does every car that drives by my house have to pay me damages for emitting pollutants onto my property?

    1. No because you couldn’t prove any damages in the case of the car. The only way you could prevail is if you could prove that there was both some kind of physical invasion of your property and a resulting reduction in the value of your property. You couldn’t do that with just a car going by.

      The result of this would be a reduction of pollution to purely monetary value. Right now under the command and control system of our environmental laws, the government comes in and stops you from polluting regardless of what your neighbors think. But under a common law system, you can pollute all you want provided you pay your neighbors enough money to make them whole.

      1. So if I dump mercury on your driveway, you can’t collect damages until someone gets sick due to mercury poisoning? That seems like an extremely high bar to put up.

        And Paul wasn’t talking about limiting it solely to proving damages. He said, “You have no right to pollute your neighbor’s property, water, air, or anything.” Meaning there could be lawsuits for leaving lights on because they cause light pollution and ruin the view of the night sky.

        1. “So if I dump mercury on your driveway, you can’t collect damages until someone gets sick due to mercury poisoning?”

          No. Where did I say that. I would be able to collect damages because it reduced the value of my property. Pretty hard to sell property that is polluted with mercury.

          Why is everyone so fucking dense about this stuff? The common law is logical and very easy to understand.

          1. The common law, enforced by the common police?

            1. God you are retarded Tony. I really feel sorry for you.

              1. So you think it’s a better world in which you’re allowed to pollute as long as your neighbors agree and are compensated? What about future generations of people? Do you not see a value in conservation by itself?

                If the world exists solely to provide you with profit over your own particular lifetime, that’s only because government has set it up to be that way by protecting your claim to your property.

                1. Re: The retarded asked a question, as if he really cared about the answer,

                  So you think it’s a better world in which you’re allowed to pollute as long as your neighbors agree and are compensated?

                  “To pollute” is a meaningless term, you stupid fuck. Who would care if you already made an arrangement with your neighbors? You undermined your own point, yet you’re too limited in intellect to even realize it, stoopid.

                  What about future generations of people? Do you not see a value in conservation by itself?

                  Suddenly, the idiot stops being Keynesian. He changes clothes more rapidly and often than Ken in Toy Story 3.

                2. What about future generations of people?

                  You mean the ones that the current regulatory state is stealing from?

          2. Why is everyone so fucking dense about this stuff?

            Eighty years of government schools.

  11. The Left wants to run Ron Paul as a third party candidate to split the ANti-Obama vote. That’s why he gets Strange New Respect.

    1. Bingo, we have a winner.

    2. Yep – make him the right-wing Nader and hope he can save Obama.

    3. Absolutely.

      1. So where’s the left-wing Nader?

        1. The left-wing Nader is the Barack Obama the left thought they were getting, and you vote for him by staying home.

          1. I think Tim’s point is that you also vote for Obama by NOT staying home.

            Anyway, since RP (or *any* libertarian, for that matter) doesn’t stand a chance, who gives a fuck who becomes president?
            Only people still under the delusion that there is a profound difference between all of the rest of them.

            If neither Ron Paul nor Gary Johnson wins, America will be fucked for at least another four years no matter who ends up winning. May as well be Obama.

    4. I’m not sure the Left wants a real anti-war candidate out there exposing their fake one.

  12. Speaking of fighting pollution with lawsuits, there was a famous court case in the 1800s where a farmer sued a railroad because sparks from a train set his field on fire. The court ruled against him because the railroad represented progress, or something like that. Does anybody know what the name of the case was?

    1. That is not ringing a bell. The Pevyhouse case from the early 20th Century is interesting. In that case a land owner sued an oil company for damaging his surface rights. The reduction in the value of the land was less than the cost for remediation. The land owner wanted the cost of remediation. The court ruled he could only get the lost value of the land and no remediation.

      1. Maybe it wasn’t that famous. I’ll ask Google for it.

      2. I didn’t find it, but I found a couple old court cases where the court ruled for the farmers, and a David Friedman discussion about this topic. So I guess whatever I remembered reading about must not have been an important case.

        1. It sounds very familiar And it is a good case to think about law and economics.

      3. Seems right. Coasean even.

      4. Seems right. Coasean even.

        1. Double Coasean?

    2. Sounds a little like LeRoy Fibre v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, a 1914 Supreme Court case where a passing train set a pile of flax straw on fire. The Court ruled for the guy with the pile of straw, but Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a partial concurrence saying “a very important element in determining the right to recover is whether the plaintiff’s flax was so near to the track as to be in danger from even a prudently managed engine.”

      Or maybe the case you’re thinking of is one of the many similar cases cited in the LeRoy Fibre opinion. Or something else entirely. As anyone who’s taken a law school torts class can tell you, existence in pre-WWI America involved living under the constant threat of having your person or property destroyed by a wayward train.

  13. I can’t believe how often Tony suckers you people into playing his troll games.

    1. Admit it Hugh….playing Whack-A-Troll is a lot of fun!

      1. You’re talking to the hombr? that once tried to have an actual dialogue with LoneWhacko.

        But you can’t “whack” trolls like Tony, because every counterargument just compels them onward because they think it’s good sport. Because some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

        1. “Because some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

          One my most favorite quotes, ever.

    2. NO SHIT…I was just thinking the same thing. Poor OM can’t help himself, he needs the exercise cause he doesnt usually engage MNG, but damn guys. It is TONY!!!!

    3. not me, incif.

      1. Yup. Little line with a small italic tony in between. Interferes with my enjoyment of this website not a whit.

    4. Self Admitted Troll:

      “Tony|7.12.11 @ 1:18PM|#
      What I often fail to acknowledge is that often I’m merely playing devil’s advocate. I try not to have too many deeply held beliefs, if I can help it.”

      The arrogance of appointing oneself the devil’s advocate for this group is breathtaking.

      1. Your role seems to be, singly, the Tony police. Perhaps that’s humility, but who gives a fuck?

  14. You have to appreciate that regulations before the abuse happens are more efficient

    Absent regulation, forethought cannot exist.

    Right.

    1. How do you sue someone for something he hasn’t done yet?

      1. You won’t have to sue them, they would have an incentive not to pollute because they know that if they do they would get sued, and because they don’t want to lose money, they won’t pollute for fear of getting sued.

        1. Thinking is hard!

  15. say often enough that his views about economics are every bit as bizarre and

    This far out from the 2008 catastrogeddon, should folks be a little more careful about mocking other folks’ economics? Is there somebody out there whose economic recommendations were put to the test and who now wants to take credit for the performance of the U.S. economy in the last 3/4 years?

    JayMi Kirchik’s newsletter trove may be four years old (we’ll never love or laugh like that again), but it’s still the best anti-Paul weapon available. The more you assail his economic theory, the more popular it becomes.

    1. But Timmy, the beautiful thing about any given macroeconomic theory is that it can never be disproven. Even when all the bailouts, TARPs, and stimuli fail to reactivate the bubble machine, you can say it failed because they didn’t do it hard enough.

      Macroeconomic theories take place in their own little universes far removed from the harsh and untidy complexities of reality. Just like the failures of NASA will never kill Star Trek, the failures of the Fed will never kill Keynes.

      Expecting people to yield in their economic convictions is like expecting people to approach the debate of who would win a fight between Captain Picard and Darth Vader with an open mind.

      1. Dude…c’mon, Vader! CLEARLY!
        Kirk, he might have a chance. Especially if there were a diamon, some coal, a conspicuous pile of sulphor and a large tube. But Picard? What is he gunna do, read poetry to vader?

        1. But would Vader beat Locutus of Borg? Somehow I am not so sure.

          1. Re: k2000k,

            Well, Locutus of Borg did not have the Force with him… But he did have 100000 Borg with him, so…

            … A million ants can eat an elephant.

            1. This is valid. I must now reconsider my opinion. Can we get a ruling on whether Picard = Locutus?

              1. For the record, on TOS, Kirk resisted or overcame mental attacks on multiple occasions. If the Borg had tried to assimilate him, they would’ve found themselves assimilated by Kirk. Millions and millions of Kirks unleashed on the galaxy, with Type III civilization technology.

                1. Re: Pro Libertate,

                  Millions and millions of Kirks unleashed on the galaxy, with Type III civilization technology.

                  The very tought makes me shudder… Imagine, millions of Kirks saying in unison: “Mr Tangerine maaaaaaaan!”

                  1. “He’s dead Jim.”

                  2. Or Eminem.

                    “How do you do a spoken word version of a rap song?”

                    “He found a way.”

                  3. That’s Shatner, not Kirk. Besides, it would be millions of Kirks yelling “Khaaan!”

                    1. And mating with humanoid and quasi-humanoid females throughout the galaxy.

                    2. You don’t think the Shat would be up for that?

                    3. The Shat is, of course, awesomeness embodied, but Kirk is even greater.

            2. Vader could simply use a Jedi mind trick to turn the Borg drones against each other.

              Plus, the Borg only attack with one cube at a time (for reasons that still aren’t very clear), so I gotta go with Vader and either the Executor or the Death Star, although the Enterprise is faster and more manuverable than any Imperial slug crusier. /geek mode off/

              1. The Force is a scam, dude.

                1. I find your lack of faith disturbing. Ask Admiral Ozzle what he thinks of the Force.

                  1. Vader just pays guys to act like they’re getting strangled to death.

                    1. No, no, that’s impossible! NOOOOOOOOO!

    2. Oh hey Tim, fancy meeting you here.

      You’re right. But economics-wise, the we didn’t spend ENOUGH and there was too little regulation argument never, ever seems to go away no matter what.

  16. I’m so glad I got out of bed today. I learned that:

    Courts are separate from government.

    And “once pollutants spread they become harmless.”

    Yep, I think y’all have finally converted me.

    1. Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

      Courts are separate from government.

      Which tells me you do not see Judge Judy.

      And “once pollutants spread they become harmless.”

      It’s called “dispersion” in fluid mechanics. But, why am I talking to you, you ignoramus? You’re nothing more than the end result of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem, that is, irremediably stoopid.

      1. And “the greenhouse effect” is basic physics.

        You know terms, not concepts. You are painfully, embarrassingly stupid, and obviously didn’t go to college public or private.

        1. Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

          And “the greenhouse effect” is basic physics.

          Yeah, sure, and you understand basic physics so well!

          “Oh, if only we used solar and wind! We could take care of our energy needs so cleanly!”

          Go to hell.

        2. I may regret asking this, if I get a response:

          What is your opinion of nuclear power, especially the enviromental aspects?

          1. I think it’s much preferable to oil and coal, but not without its obvious risks.

            I do find it curious that it’s so popular in libertarian circles considering neither the technology nor the industry would exist without massive government support.

            1. Shithead:
              “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc”

            2. Thorium power is essentially risk free, and there’s a lot more of it.

              The three major nuclear disasters were not the technology at fault, be egregious human error:

              Chernobyl: An electrical (not nuclear) engineer was in charge of the experiments being done when the disaster happened. Had a nuclear engineer been in charge, the problem could have be averted or greatly mitigated.

              Three Mile Island: Incompetence. It took all day for the operators to do what they should have done in the first five minutes.

              Fukishima: One does not build a nuclear power plant on a shoreline in an earthquake prone country without accounting for the possibility of a tsunami.

              Nuclear energy could have been discovered and utilized without government funding, quite possibly by 1960. Just because the governments *were* the first to make organized efforts, they didn’t necessarily *have* to.

              Nuclear power would be a lot more affordable is a. There weren’t 100,000 pages of regulation to be gone through before starting construction and b. the industry was actually innovating at a normal rate. The amount of regulation prevents ordinary innovation rates and the complexity of the licensing process means that there are fewer opportunities to experiment. Seeing as no new plant has opened since the 1980s, it’s should be no surprise is the technology is outdated and therefore hyperexpensive.

              Government subsidies for nuclear are about 1/20th of those for either solar or wind.

              1. That it’s human error that causes catastrophes doesn’t mean they’re any more acceptable–human error is still a risk.

                And for anything that can cause the damage a nuclear plant can potentially cause should have as much regulation on it as necessary to mitigate risks as much as humanly possible. You don’t want to be suing over nuclear accidents, you want to prevent them.

                The major subsidy nuclear receives in the US is protection from liability–no one would build a nuclear plant if he had to pay liability insurance on it (Price-Anderson Act). This protection exists because the private sector wasn’t interested in building the plants without it.

              2. Chernobyl was also a result of a piss poor design, not just human error. The containment shell was woefully inadequate. It was also the only one of the three to actually cause casualties. No one has died or is expected to die from either TMI or Fukishima.

                And, given that it was built in the USSR, it was also the only one of the three that was completely government owned and operated.

  17. liberals favorably inclined toward Paul’s views on defense and foreign policy are less likely to criticize him than they are some other Republican candidates.

    We can’t have those people straying off the plantation, now, can we?

  18. I believe Walter Block talks about the cases in one of his paper books. There were several;

    Interestingly, apparently back in the 19th century states started regulating smokestack heights to make it more difficult for pollution victims to identify the culprits.

  19. How do you sue someone for something he hasn’t done yet?

    Gosh, I don’t know; perhaps you could create an environment in which consequences are predictable.

    Fucking rule of law- how does it work?

    1. How do you sue someone for something he hasn’t done yet?

      You go to court, and you file a motion for an injunction.

      That wasn’t so hard, now, was it?

  20. So Jon Stewart is nice to your preferred candidate and you go all Sally Fields over it? You guys are far less cynical than you pretend to be…I’m so dissapointed in you

  21. NC governor recommends suspending democracy to focus on jobs

    As a way to solve the national debt crisis, North Carolina Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue recommends suspending Congressional elections for the next couple of years.

    “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, North Carolina, according to the Raleigh News and Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”

    Perdue said she thinks that temporarily halting elections would allow members of Congress to focus on the economy. “You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things,” Perdue said.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09…..z1ZBmDQJrz

    1. What about presidential elections? Wouldn’t he be better able to focus if he didn’t have to worry about re-election ?

      Kee-rist, is Atlas really shrugging ?

      1. “What about presidential elections? Wouldn’t he be better able to focus if he didn’t have to worry about re-election ?”

        I’m guessing this is a feeler for that.

        BTW, that Putin guy may be manly, but like Chavez and his Iranian counterpart, he sure is a short fucker.

        1. I still maintain Gary johnson could fuck him up in the octogon.

          1. Gary Johnson would trip and fall unexpectedly before getting into the ring, whereupon he would start foaming at the mouth and expire shortly thereafter. Putin don’t believe in leaving these things to chance.

    2. North Carolina Republicans immediately scoffed at Perdue’s proposal, pointing out to her that elections hold politicians accountable for their actions.

      In my own defense, I was about to recommend that the elections be replaced with an open hunting season on congresscreatures.

    3. M. Perdue a perdue sa tete.

    4. CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS SHIT?

      Hardly. This is *truly outrageous*. 8-(

      I trust the good people of NC will move to suspend her … jurisdiction.

    5. Recall the bitch.

  22. I would like to see President Johnson shepherd his nominee for Federal Reserve Chairman (former Congressman Ron Paul) through Senate confirmation hearings.

    Just for the entertainment value. And in my alternate reality universe, Chairman Paul pulls an Alfred Kahn, and puts himself out of a job.

  23. Pollution needs to be defined as levels of specific chemicals that pose risk of actual biological harm affecting areas outside the originator’s own property, and perhaps levels of things affecting senses (sound, smell) based on nuisance (and I really don’t agree with these nuisance things).

    Without clearly defining pollution in this way you will end up with all kinds of morons seeking litigation for things that should be considered natural consequences of owning property, and cunts like Tony claiming “CARBON!!!!” (carbon dioxide) is pollution despite the fact that it causes no harm whatsoever to property.

    Simple pollution regulations are the most efficient way of establishing equal protection for everyone’s property.

  24. I think a Vader vs Picard yodel-off would be awesome.

  25. Funny how so few libertarians recognize that their ‘ism’ can only flourish in a limited government society…it is limited government conservatives like Ron Paul who make the LP a viable choir for folks to take refuge in when they can’t muster the courage to enter the real world of practical Human Action and consequences.

    1. Ron Paul is a libertarian. He ran for president as a libertarian in 1988.

    2. fukin WOW!…good thing I am going home cause I could waste some eletrons destroying your silliness.

  26. i thought paul came off pretty well on the daily show.

    he needs to come up with a better answer (he rambled a bit and could have made better points) when stewart brought up the whole industrial revolution thang… obviously referencing a time when 10 yrs olds etc. routinely were forced to work in factories, etc. – a condition that regulation HAS fixed (at least in the US).

    something along the lines of reminding stewart that states have the power to pass child abuse etc. laws that address such situations, and that laws against child abuse are consistent with libertarianism, etc.

    1. You can’t escape the fact that given libertarianism’s need to be the One True and Pure System, allowing for regulations against child abuse is just the beginning of a slippery slope toward full scale socialism. Either the market solves all problems or you need government to smooth over its rough edges–at which point we just disagree on scope, not principle, which for some reason most here feel the need to have all to themselves.

      1. Re: Truly stoopid and ignorant sack of pus,

        You can’t escape the fact that given libertarianism’s need to be the One True and Pure System, allowing for regulations against child abuse is just the beginning of a slippery slope toward full scale socialism.

        No, you idiot – taking prioperty that does not belong to you and calling it “taxation” is the road towards socialism, not stopping assholes from abusing children. You’re one dishonest and verily worthless piece of human trash, you vile and repugnant fuck.

        1. Okay and how does society stop assholes from abusing children without taxpayer funded lawmakers and police?

          1. Re: Ignorant, stoopid piece of worthless scum,

            Okay and how does society stop assholes from abusing children without taxpayer funded lawmakers and police?

            How about client-funded police and just keeping your children within your sight and not assume that they will be “safe and secure because of Daddy Government”?

            1. how about govt funded police? what kind of funhouse mirror libertarianism doesn’t support govt funded police? there is no private cause of action for prosecuting and investigating crimes.

              we can both agree that police, courts, etc. have – in most cases – too MUCH power over shit that shouldn’t BE crimes eg. drug use, etc. but that’s a different topic

            2. Well crap if we’re just going to assume perfect behavior, of course we don’t need the police. Like we can just assume perfectly rational markets. Why do you feel you are entitled to have a worldview based on fantasy assumptions, though?

              1. Re: Boycotted brain speaks stoopid,

                Well crap if we’re just going to assume perfect behavior, of course we don’t need the police.

                Well of course! But yet you’re so fast to assume perfect behavior from government!

                You’re certainly a dumbass, sockpuppet. Just so you know, one does not assume perfect behavior from anybody, government or not. Assuming such a thing makes you liable to be cheated – one does not become stoopid when there’s no government. However, one CAN become stoopid and naive and an imbecile when government purports to “protect you,” or what we (the nonstatists) call “moral hazard.”

                1. I would be an idiot for assuming perfect behavior in government. But if you don’t believe in the perfect behavior of the market, then name a regulatory alteration to the market that you like.

                  Or are we just not allowed to try to correct for its failures because you are a paranoid gun-toting hermit who can’t admit a single aspect of government adds to human well-being, despite that being obvious, silly nonsense? (As you should know, cherishing your claim to your property as you do.)

          2. tony, i’m a libertarian. and a cop. police forces and legislators exist in a libertarian society. in fact they are necessary

            1. tony, i’m a libertarian. and a cop.

              Odd that a libertarian has a job where he routinely violates the non-agression principle. We’ve been over this. You’re a libertarian leaning utilitarian. Like Tulpa (though I don’t think he violates the non-agression principle as a career).

              1. i most definitely am not a utilitarian. i’m a pragmatist. there is a difference.

                i also am NOT a randian libertarian. i’m from the hayek/burke school.

                but the idea that i’m a utilitarian is laughable. not even close.

                1. Hayek was very inconsistent in applying the non-agression principal, but he did use it often. You are a consequentialist libertarian, which means that you favor liberty in that it leads to positive consequences. That is absolutely a utilitarian argument.

                  1. no, that’s apparently what you THINK i believe. i favor liberty because i believe it is an inherent right of man to be free from encroachment on doing what he wants to do (cartman: “i’ll do what i want”)

                    iow, it is wrong for govt. to encroach on liberty BECAUSE IT IS WRONG. malum in se, iow, NOT merely because it will lead to better results if govt. stays the #$(#$( out of people’s lives.

                    as for the WOD, for example, the fact that i can say that AS A MATTER OF POLICY, it does more harm than good is tangential to the fact that it is ALSO fundamentally wrong (imo) for govt. to tell people what they can and can’t put in their bodies.

                    those are tangents to each other

                    1. cartman: “i’ll do what i want”

                      Cartman cooked a dude’s parents and then fed them to him.

                      BECAUSE IT IS WRONG

                      And anyone can claim anything is wrong. Lots of people think premarital sex is wrong, just because. Why are you correct and they are in error? Isn’t it just axiomatic assertions? What does “wrong” even mean outside of the context of human well-being? “God says so” seems to be the extent of it. You’re no pragmatist I’m sorry to say.

                      Besides, you know that liberty means more than government getting out of the way of letting people do what they want. If you want to cook someone’s parents and then feed them to him, you surely think that individual liberty (but measured collectively) is enhanced by your being taken by force and locked away forever.

                    2. i favor liberty because i believe it is an inherent right of man to be free from encroachment on doing what he wants to do

                      Yet a great many of the laws you’ve pledged to enforce do just that. Odd.

                      If you believe that, then you are a hypocrite, similar to a vegetarian working the pneumatic gun in a slaughterhouse. Once again I erred in giving you too much credit for intellectual consistency.

                      You’d think I’d have learned my lesson by now.

                    3. nope. this is the same silly canard you spout –

                      your fallacy…

                      i believe that govt. has many powers itr shouldn’t have.

                      but i’m a pragmatist. there is no realistic chance our govt or ANY govt. would enact exactly the set of laws, with the exact same punishments i would approve of, and not enact any laws i disagree with.

                      heck, even ron paul holds many policy positions that many libertarians think run fundamentally against THEIR concept of libertarianism.

                      welcome to THE REAL WORLD.

                      the fact that i know i do an immense amount of good catching fuckhead predators, helping people, etc. is what matters. yes, sometimes i have to enforce laws i disagree with. heck, i have to do it far more often for WODV shit than i ever have to do with WOD shit

                      that makes me a pragmatist, just like a doctor who is restricted by DEA and FDA etc. reg’s that he disagrees with, but does his job the best he can WITH THOSE limitations.

                      yours is yet another example also of the whole perfect being the enemy of the good rubbish i see here so often.

                    4. Come off that shit. You only have principles when it serves you. I’ve seen you go from constitutionalist to utilitarian in the same damn argument (DUI, if you forget). You are a hypocrite, both in your arguments and in your daily life.

                    5. yours is yet another example also of the whole perfect being the enemy of the good rubbish i see here so often.

                      You say this like there’s no difference between providing a politically feasible policy and actively depriving a person of liberty. Trust me, there is.

                    6. I didn’t ask to sell this stuff! It’s just a job! I hate the Romans as much as anybody!

                    7. yawn. if the criteria for being a cop was agreeing with every criminal law, almost nobody could be a cop, and the only person(s) who could would be complete authoritarian statists.

                      that is far inferior to having people of conscience and diverse political views doing the job.

                    8. Dunphy, are you a member of LEAP and Oath Keepers? I’d definitely give you credit if you were.

    2. Prosperity ends child labor, not government fiat.

      1. Bingo, Jordan. If the alternative is mass starvation, regulations aren’t gonna keep children from working.

  27. I haven’t read anything upthread…. but anyway. Something that annoyed me that Stewart said was when he was mocking Paul with “so instead of tyranny by the feds, you have tyranny by the state.”

    Well dumbass, yeah. That’s the fucking point. If it is only a state that is being tyrannical, then you can fucking move. As it is now, we have this federal congress, a president, and a SCOTUS who for all practicle purposes do not believe there are any limits to the feds.

    And Stewart, why not legalize heroine. After someone gets addicted so what? They can still function.

    1. You have to see that this is a really huge copout. What’s so special about states that they get to be tyrannical? There are states with a larger population than the entire US had at its founding. Mobility can’t be it. You do have the right to emigrate, and there are even more countries than there are US states to choose from.

      Let’s not forget that the original grievance against federal encroachment on states’ rights is that certain states wanted to maintain the ability to enslave people.

      1. Re: Moronic imbecile incapable of comprehending,

        What’s so special about states that they get to be tyrannical?

        They’re SMALLER. Their power is much more limited. Satisfied, scum?

        1. Smaller than what? Some are bigger, population-wise, than the entire US in its past. What is this big and small crap? I thought you believed in principles.

          1. Smaller than what?

            This has to be a spoof.

          2. Re: Stoopid in America,

            Smaller than what?

            Your head.

          3. Fifty choices are better than one, Tony.

        2. I’m not a fan of Tony’s arguments but does *every* response to him have to include a playground insult?

      2. Let’s not forget that the original grievance against federal encroachment on states’ rights is that certain states wanted to maintain the ability to enslave people.

        No, I believe the original one was over whiskey.

        1. ^^ THIS ^^
          State’s Rights were anathema to slaveholders. Abolitionists were asserting state’s rights as a justification for ignoring the Fugitive Slave Acts. State’s Rights became a Southern rallying cry during Reconstruction and Jim Crow, not while chattel-slavery was legal.

      3. Mobility can’t be it. You do have the right to emigrate, and there are even more countries than there are US states to choose from.

        Love it or leave it, eh?

        And yes, mobility can be it. It is orders of magnitude easier to move to another state than it is to emigrate to another country.

        1. and of course when you move to another state, you retain ALL of your rights as a US citizen and are protected fully by it.

          any state can, and many do – respect MORE rights, but you are ensured the baseline protections in ANY and EVERY state.

          don’t like state income tax? you have states to choose

          want shall issue CCW? ditto (although i think the 2nd SHOULD protect this, but i digress)

          etc.

        2. But it’s something made less easy by poor economic conditions caused by backwards federal government hating states.

      4. 1) tony, our nation was founded as a democratic REPUBLIC. this makes it unique. our federal govt. is there to ensure rights under the federal constitution are respected everywhere, and deal with other national issues (e.g. borders, currency, etc.).

        however…

        any state can (and most do) recognize GREATER rights than established under the federal standard.

        my state constitution does. in a # of areas.

        the problem now is that the federal govt has expanded the commerce clause etc. such that they are involved in shit that was never intended . see: medical mj (a state issue) etc.

        no state can enslave people (any more) because FEDERAL CONSTITUTION forbids it.

        2) people can and do choose states based on stuff like what rights they respect, tax structure, how much they respect business, etc. i did. i love california. except, at least as a working man – i don’t want to pay their ridiculous income taxes, and live in a state where RKBA is not respected, and the state govt. sticks its nose in everything. so, i chose WA.
        states do NOT get to be “tyrannical”. they are limited AT A MINIMUM by the federal constitution

        they may, and most are ALSO limited by MORE strict guidelines under state law and state constitution.

        1. Dunphy, forget about it. You can’t reason with this stupid cocksucker. For christ sakes, he doens’t even understand the concept that a state’s authority ends at its borders.

      5. Shut the fuck up Tony. Just shut the fuck up.

    2. Re: Troy,

      That was precisely Paul’s point: You can move your life and/or business to freer places. The reason why East Coast and West Coast liberals want to give MORE power to the Fed is the same why corporations lobby for licensing laws, IP and regulations: To keep competition down. If you make it equally expensive to live in Michigan as in Texas, then (so the logic goes) people in Michigan will not bother move. It doesn’t quite work that way, but nevertheless you have an imposing FedGov still trying hard to keep everybody equally fucked.

      1. i moved MY life and business (so to speak) to a freer place. Part of the reason i chose WA (after living in HI) was a less confiscatory tax structure, no income tax, and a libertarian (somewhat) state constitution that respects

        1) a right to privacy (not in the federal constitution)
        2) unambiguous shall issue CCW permits
        3) right to open carry w/o a permit

        etc.

        our fuckstick leftwing legislature does pass a lot of nanny bullshit like making online poker a C felony, but it’s still a lot freer

        again, LABORATORY OF STATES

        1. a right to privacy (not in the federal constitution)

          Sure it is. It’s one of those deals that you have to say and parse the words.

          The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

          IOW, “We just mentioned some of the rights that you have. You still get to keep all the rest!

          … Hobbit

          1. nope. read the WA constitution. THAT’s a right to privacy.

            it would be neato if we had one under the federal constitution, but we don’t

      2. We have a weak federal government. It can’t even implement national healthcare!

        Are you a states righter, constitutionalist, or minarchist? Seems like whichever is convenient. No not even that, like you just randomly stumble into them.

        The thing is, you give states more autonomy and some crap out, like the South. Small government types are dragging the national metrics down and then blaming the government they hate for their failure.

        There are increasingly fewer “state economies” and a more interconnected national economy. That only argues for stronger federal government. States that must compete among each other as nations do makes them all weaker.

        1. “you give states more autonomy and some crap out, like the South”

          Because the South always engages in stereotyping and wild generalizations!

          Also, during slavery and Jim Crow, the dominant political leaders of the South, and many populist movements, promoted nationalism and federal supremacy on many issues:

          A federal bureaucracy to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act despite opposition from Northern states.

          Federal farm price supports.

          Federal ownership of railroads.

          The feds confiscating rich people’s wealth over $1,000,000 (that’s Huey Long).

          Oh, never mind, here is an interview with Tony:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc

    3. Constitutional restrictions on government are to be enforced on all levels of government.

    4. Also, maximum individual freedom should be prioritized over “states’ rights”.

      1. States don’t have rights. Individuals do.

  28. Hah! I’m glad to see that the picture I took of my wife, Ron Paul, Kent Snyder, and Lew Moore is getting good use. Wikipedia/Creative Commons FTW!

    1. Ha, well thank you for that!

      1. No problem. My wife got a kick out of seeing her “fame” spread. (She is also pictured in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otavalo and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santarpio‘s )

  29. Ron Paul 1488
    The Final Solution for America

    The two eights of the number 1488 stand for the eigth letter of the alphabet: H. And the two of them together form H H or Heil Hitler.

    The fourteen part of the number 1488 stands for those fourteen words that every white supremacist knows: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”

    Good old Ron Paul. He’ll help Iran nuke that zionist entity with you Libertarian clowns cheering along.

    (hat tip to Bill Levinson for the Ron Paul 1488 remark)

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

    1. Congratulations Underzog, you managed to break the Warp 10 insanity barrier. Nobody thought it could be done. But apparently the laws of reality surrounding you break down as the number of phantom anti-Semites approaches infinity.

      1. Hey! Hey! What about 19?!

    2. He’s anti-Semitic because he’s non-interventionist, apparently.

  30. OK. Now I have read all the prior comments. I think Tony is the first person who makes me consider turning my libertarian card so I can track him down and punching him in his fucking face.

    1. Troy, I think he’s really Bob Beckel in drag, playing with us.

      1. Hard telling.
        If there ever was a singular shithead, the most recent postings are more aggressive, albeit with the same lack of concern with the subject.
        I’ve gotten tired of the horseshit.

  31. Love the Matt Welch hipster line.

  32. I see the Reason Ga girl is back on the pipe and out on the street. So sad.

  33. This site is run over with flaming liberals

  34. Is everything outside the conservative box got to be the prissy, flaming leftists

  35. 1. Ron Paul took a lie detector test. The lie detector tapped out.
    2. Ron Paul is an element on the periodic table.
    3. Ron Paul could lead a horse to water AND convince it to drink, but he doesn’t believe the government has the right to so he refuses.
    4. King Midas shook hands with Ron Paul once. Nothing happened.
    5. Studies by the World Health Organization show that Ron Paul is the leading cause of freedom among men.
    6. Ron Paul wasn’t born. He liberated himself from the womb.
    7. The chief export of Ron Paul is liberty.
    8. When fascism goes to sleep at night, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul.
    9. Ron Paul eats Total Gyms for breakfast.
    10.If Ron Paul had lived in Sparta, the movie would have been called “1”.
    11.When Chuck Norris gets scared, he goes to Ron Paul.
    12.Ron Paul lost his virginity to Susan B. Anthony.
    13.Ron Paul doesn’t cut taxes, He kills them with his bare hands.
    14.Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the Bill of Rights and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom.
    15.If you pull Ron Paul’s finger, a band will march by playing Yankee Doodle Dandy.

    –SAYO

  36. Thank you for the Ron Paul coverage. I didn’t know much about him until this year, but since I’ve discovered him, I’ve found a reason to become engaged in politics.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.