I'm sorry but Ron Paul "c@n't" win

[limequat]

If Ron Paul wins...

How will we maintain the military industrial complex?
How will we fund record spending through the Federal Reserve?
How will continue the brick-by-brick building of the police state?
How will we maintain the status quo, uphold the establishment?

Ron Paul c@n't win!


I just realized I've been hearing it wrong all this time. They're not saying that RP is incapable of winning. They're saying the prospect is so terrifying, that it can't even be considered. It's not allowed. Like a cop telling you that you can't speed. Or you can't smoke marijuana.

Well, you goddamned, bottom feeding, mindless wastes of flesh... you can't tell me how fast to drive, what to put in my body, or what to think. I drove 85 mph on the way to work today and you don't even want to know what I'm thinking now.

Ron Paul has won, is winning, and will continue to win. RPFTW.

 

[dannno]

There is a lot of truth to that

 

[Dr.3D]

I'm not so pleased with the negative thread title.

 

[Yieu]

Remember to Be Wise About Thread Titles...

 

[trey4sports]

i remember Donald saying that....

 

[sratiug]

You have pointed out the forest in the middle of all the treeson.

 

[enjerth]

you can't tell me how fast to drive

Yes, we can tell you how fast you can drive. The roads are a public resource and the public does have the right to decide how it is governed.

This is not just nitpicking. We have a duty, not to oppose authority, but to oppose unlawful and illegitimate authority. Regulating traffic is a legitimate authority.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Yes, we can tell you how fast you can drive. The roads are a public resource and the public does have the right to decide how it is governed.

This is not just nitpicking. We have a duty, not to oppose authority, but to oppose unlawful and illegitimate authority. Regulating traffic is a legitimate authority.

If he drove 85mph and no one was harmed, what crime did he commit?

It is easier to make the arguement that the Government official who would ticket him is doing more harm! And is helping to create a larger government which will exploit more people for non-violent crimes.

 

[pmbug]

Ron Paul can't win something he's already won.

That's a better thread title.

 

[limequat]

Yes, we can tell you how fast you can drive. The roads are a public resource and the public does have the right to decide how it is governed.

This is not just nitpicking. We have a duty, not to oppose authority, but to oppose unlawful and illegitimate authority. Regulating traffic is a legitimate authority.

Well, I guess your version of freedom is different from mine. I believe that free travel is a right. And as VoluntaryAmerican alluded, I should be able to do light speed while naked and drunk as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

 

[Inkblots]

Well, I guess your version of freedom is different from mine. I believe that free travel is a right. And as VoluntaryAmerican alluded, I should be able to do light speed while naked and drunk as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

No, enjerth is correct. In a maximally libertarian society, roads would be privatized, and the owners would charge for their usage, and institute terms of usage. These terms would include things like speed limits and the rest of what we know as traffic law, for the purposes of managing liability, protecting the safety of other customers, maintaining the road infrastructure in good order, and so on. If you, as a customer, refused to agree to the terms of use, or violated them while on the road, you would be denied service, or else charged a penalty before being allowed to use the owner's property, i.e. the road, again.

In other words, the free market outcome is nearly identical to what exists today. The government owns (most) roadways, and 'customers', that is, all drivers, pay a fee to use them via the gasoline tax. The government sets terms of use, but unlike a private business, all citizens get some say in what they will be by voting. The current state of traffic law is consistent with natural rights and mirrors that of a truly free society. The only possible objection you can raise is that public ownership is immoral, but that, again, has nothing to do with speed limits being somehow immoral.

 

[limequat]

No, enjerth is correct. In a maximally libertarian society, roads would be privatized, and the owners would charge for their usage, and institute terms of usage. These terms would include things like speed limits and the rest of what we know as traffic law, for the purposes of managing liability, protecting the safety of other customers, maintaining the road infrastructure in good order, and so on. If you, as a customer, refused to agree to the terms of use, or violated them while on the road, you would be denied service, or else charged a penalty before being allowed to use the owner's property, i.e. the road, again.

In other words, the free market outcome is nearly identical to what exists today. The government owns (most) roadways, and 'customers', that is, all drivers, pay a fee to use them via the gasoline tax. The government sets terms of use, but unlike a private business, all citizens get some say in what they will be by voting. The current state of traffic law is consistent with natural rights and mirrors that of a truly free society. The only possible objection you can raise is that public ownership is immoral, but that, again, has nothing to do with speed limits being somehow immoral.

I disagree. In a libertarian society, there would be competition amongst road owners. I could enter into voluntary agreements with owners of the roads. Probably some owners would tolerage higher speeds or not have limits at all.

 

[enjerth]

Regardless of whether or not roads are private, the owner(s) DO get to establish terms for their use. It just happens that the public owns the roads, so the public (or the delegates that the public elects) get to determine the terms.

 

[limequat]

I reject government ownership of anything. I also reject the notion that the public has any say in the traffic laws. Most people speed and hate traffic cams, and yet here we are.

 

[enjerth]

If he drove 85mph and no one was harmed, what crime did he commit?

Reckless endangerment?

It is easier to make the arguement that the Government official who would ticket him is doing more harm! And is helping to create a larger government which will exploit more people for non-violent crimes.

An argument against the legitimate authority of government based on the use of illegitimate and unlawful abuse of authority is not well reasoned.

 

[enjerth]

I reject government ownership of anything. I also reject the notion that the public has any say in the traffic laws. Most people speed and hate traffic cams, and yet here we are.

I never claimed government ownership. I claimed public ownership. The government is entrusted with that property for the purposes of regulating the use of and maintaining that public property according to the will of the public.

edit: I see you were replying to Inkblots, sorry.

 

[limequat]

Reckless endangerment?

Who's the victim?

An argument against the legitimate authority of government based on the use of illegitimate and unlawful abuse of authority is not well reasoned.

Where does the federal government derive legitimate authority for the national highway system and the corresponding set of laws and regulations?

 

[limequat]

I never claimed government ownership. I claimed public ownership. The government is entrusted with that property for the purposes of regulating the use of and maintaining that public property according to the will of the public.

edit: I see you were replying to Inkblots, sorry.

Government ownership vs Public ownership is the difference between communism and socialism.
This thread is derailed. I'm out.

 

[enjerth]

I reject government ownership of anything. I also reject the notion that the public has any say in the traffic laws. Most people speed and hate traffic cams, and yet here we are.

Of course the public has a say in traffic laws. Despite all the complaints about government, the people still re-elect the same government body they complain about, time and time again. The people get the government they deserve. When their complaints are not enforced by the power of the vote, their complaints are meaningless.

 

[Romulus]

That is an astute observation, when someone says he 'c@nt win'. I would ask, do they want him to win?