PPP: Ron Paul now second in Iowa

[nate895]

I thought that someone who has been at the forums for so long would realize you're debating a straw man, and we know it, and it's more ridiculous than persuasive.

I'm not debating limited government conservatives (and most people who call themselves libertarians are that, not actual libertarians).

 

[McBell]

They don't. That's why I'm here and not on Democratic Underground or MittRomneyForums.com (I don't know if that exists, but you get the point). Limited government is the only way to deal with some of the problem. Now, sometimes that government is going to go out of control like it is today, but that does not defeat the idea that we need a limited government. The state, the family, the church, and other institutions all play a role in restraining the passions of men. Two of those are weak today and the other is a monster.

But weren't all of those created by men?

 

[AuH20]

They don't. That's why I'm here and not on Democratic Underground or MittRomneyForums.com (I don't know if that exists, but you get the point). Limited government is the only way to deal with some of the problem. Now, sometimes that government is going to go out of control like it is today, but that does not defeat the idea that we need a limited government. The state, the family, the church, and other institutions all play a role in restraining the passions of men. Two of those are weak today and the other is a monster.

I'd replace the Church with spirituality. The Church can be quite corrupt as seen with it's collusion with the European monarchies.

 

[nate895]

I don't think many sound minded libertarians believe that humans are good. I think they understand that liberty can only grow from the soil of order.

That isn't libertarianism. That's conservatism of a particularly small government variety (one of the links up there spells that out before he speaks). If Ron Paul runs as that, I'm going to be excited. If he runs as the type of libertarian I'm talking about, I won't be. It's too early to tell, and I can't help with the early campaign much anyway. People outside of Iowa and New Hampshire don't care, and even if I'm excited I ain't makin' the trip all the way to Iowa or New Hampshire.

 

[McBell]

I'm not debating limited government conservatives (and most people who call themselves libertarians are that, not actual libertarians).

Use defines meaning.

 

[nate895]

I'd replace the Church with spirituality. The Church can be quite corrupt as seen with it's collusion with the European monarchies.

All of them can be corrupt. They're all made up of men. We must be forever vigilant against our own vices and the vices of others. It's a tremendously hard task, suppressing sin is.

 

[JCLibertarian]

But by what means do people become good when they are elected?

That is my problem. Democratic Statists(or "Republican" Statists) start with the premise that man is imperfect, therefore these imperfect men must elect imperfect men to govern the lives of other imperfect men. There argument falls flat on it's face. It would make sense if they advocated an technocracy, or rule buy intellectual oligarchs, but they argue for a arbitrary involuntary top down government by the imperfect people whom they claim if left to self government would result in chaos.

 

[nate895]

Use defines meaning.

In the regular world, yes, but I'm speaking on philosophical terms here. I'm using jargon. Personally, I wouldn't identify as a libertarian politically, but I have no problem with people who just think the state's too big using it of themselves in a commoner context. I'm not going to try them for heresy or anything.

 

[McBell]

I don't really see any point in making the distinction, in any context.

 

[AuH20]

All of them can be corrupt. They're all made up of men. We must be forever vigilant against our own vices and the vices of others. It's a tremendously hard task, suppressing sin is.

I think we should let folks sin so as to purify themselves. I think trying reform others' behavior outside our families is a lost cause. Men are wicked creatures and need to find their own salvation.

 

[nate895]

That is my problem. Democratic Statists(or "Republican" Statists) start with the premise that man is imperfect, therefore these imperfect men must elect imperfect men to govern the lives of other imperfect men. There argument falls flat on it's face. It would make sense if they advocated an technocracy, or rule buy intellectual oligarchs, but they argue for a arbitrary involuntary top down government by the imperfect people whom they claim if left to self government would result in chaos.

I argue for the Rule of Law. Laws must govern men, not men govern laws. That's why I'm opposed to the present regime that situates itself on the Potomac.

 

[nate895]

I don't really see any point in making the distinction, in any context.

You obviously haven't written many papers for philosophy or theology courses, which is a shame. You have to make distinctions in those cases, there just is no other way to talk without confusing people and being misunderstood. I'm just trying not to be misunderstood here.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

I don't think many sound minded libertarians believe that humans are good. I think they understand that liberty can only grow from the soil of order.

I have philosophical problems undercutting this whole debate. Human beings each have an individual consciousness. A few are good, many are bad & most are just floating with the current.

That said, Nate's argument is not completely rational here...he has used meaningless phrases like "it is too simpleton" and has misused the word "balanced." In the context given, balanced means some liberties taken away.

But politically, the fact is Ron is not a Libertarian. He understands and sympathizes with them but he's more of a strict Constitutionalist, Jeffersonian, early 1900's Republican...take your pick.

 

[nate895]

But politically, the fact is Ron is not a Libertarian. He understands and sympathizes with them but he's more of a strict Constitutionalist, Jeffersonian, early 1900's Republican...take your pick.

I hope he runs as one. I'm not judging the good doctor. I'm just concerned that he might miss the golden opportunity to change this government back to the rule of law.

 

[McBell]

You obviously haven't written many papers for philosophy or theology courses, which is a shame. You have to make distinctions in those cases, there just is no other way to talk without confusing people and being misunderstood. I'm just trying not to be misunderstood here.

Alright then. Maybe I just have some trouble taking it seriously because I primarily see the distinction made on internet discussions such as this. I get it now, though.

 

[Flash]

Ron also needs to clarify his position on illegal immigration. If he isn't willing to build a fence, then he won't be elected. I know he wants to do away with government programs that subsidize illegal immigrants, but a fence will severely HELP the cause. And more importantly, most Conservatives agree with me. Ron needs to do something about this before it becomes an issue.

 

[AuH20]

I have philosophical problems undercutting this whole debate. Human beings each have an individual consciousness. A few are good, many are bad & most are just floating with the current.

That said, Nate's argument is not completely rational here...he has used meaningless phrases like "it is too simpleton" and has misused the word "balanced." In the context given, balanced means some liberties taken away.

But politically, the fact is Ron is not a Libertarian. He understands and sympathizes with them but he's more of a strict Constitutionalist, Jeffersonian, early 1900's Republican...take your pick.

It depends what you define liberty as. A so-called Sovereign Free man, or as Russell Kirk stated, a canary, if released from it's cage into the jungle, would be ripped to pieces in a matter of minutes.