Ron Paul Can't Win

#376
#376
And everyday they are telling me they need more more more. Well guess what, one day they will wake up and there won't be anyone left to tax. Then what are they going to do?
 
#377
#377
theFallGuy said:
Money is taken from you (tax) and usually given to someone else. If you don't pay your taxes what happens? They throw you in jail or take more shat from you.

That is the definition of theft. Doesn't matter if an individual does it with a gun or the gov't does it by threatening jail time.
Click to expand...

theFallGuy said:
The fruits of those tax dollars are paying for some crackhead to take home his PS3 that he paid for with his EBT card while driving a Cadillac Escalade to the store.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree in the fact that I believe it is waste. It is not theft though. How hard is this to understand? It is a social contract. Not an individual one. The road you drive on, the ambulance to receive if you're in a wreck, or a tank to defend you is not paid solely by you. As a libertarian, I wish our social programs were cut back and reformed as much as the next guy, but I do not see it as theft.
 
#378
#378
PKT_VOL said:
I don't disagree in the fact that I believe it is waste. It is not theft though. How hard is this to understand? It is a social contract. Not an individual one. The road you drive on, the ambulance to receive if you're in a wreck, or a tank to defend you is not paid solely by you. As a libertarian, I wish our social programs were cut back and reformed as much as the next guy, but I do not see it as theft.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing that we need tax $$ to pay for defense (just about the only thing the gov't is actually given authority over under the constitution) and some basic needs such as fire and police. But everything else is theft. The amount of $$$ they take in is not necessary to pay for only defense and basic community needs. Where is all that $$ going? I don't see it at all. I'm for the complete abolishment of all social programs. I don't want to hear about "cutting them back and reform". Those are just empty words that politicians use. I think they should be abandoned.

Most libertarians I know want to abolish as much of the gov't as they can.
 
#379
#379
And before you bring up public schools I'm for the complete privatization of public schools. Hell, we could even privatize jails. I'm fine with that too.
 
#380
#380
PKT_VOL said:
I don't disagree in the fact that I believe it is waste. It is not theft though. How hard is this to understand? It is a social contract. Not an individual one. The road you drive on, the ambulance to receive if you're in a wreck, or a tank to defend you is not paid solely by you. As a libertarian, I wish our social programs were cut back and reformed as much as the next guy, but I do not see it as theft.
Click to expand...

How do you define theft? Just because society allows government to take from us doesn't mean it's not theft. A "social contract" does not change the definition of theft.

You didn't answer this question:

nbakerld said:
So if your neighbor forcibly takes money from you to put on a fireworks show, you wouldn't call it theft, because you are able to enjoy the fruits of his spending?
Click to expand...
 
#381
#381
Don Fanucci wasn't a thief, because when he forcibly took money from individuals he protected the neighborhood, and they all seemed to accept it.

godfather_2_2_02.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#382
#382
MystifyingVol said:
How do I enjoy the fruits of the EBT program if I'm not on said program? Why is EBT better than local charity? How much overhead is in EBT compared to a local charity that feeds people?
Click to expand...

Again, I am a libertarian. I think private charity should and could do a better job of helping the needy that the government. However, if you need assistance, it is available to you. Just because we do not use it, nor endorse it, does not make it theft. In any budget, there are going to be things which an individual would see as waste and thus, by your view, theft. We have a representative democracy, you have a voice in how your tax dollars are utilized just like I do, and unfortunately, just like person who abuses the system.

MystifyingVol said:
It is theft when money is taken from me to directly benefit another single individual and not the community.
Click to expand...

Agree in general. Except it is not theft from a society stand point. You are talking from an individual to another individual. Taxes are a social contract. Presumably, you had your voice heard in an election. Our society has spoken. They would like the government to assist in providing a social safety net because they believe it will be embetter our community. We both disagree with this, but we are two individuals who have given up partial economic sovereignty to be apart of this society.

utvolpj said:
if it's unconstitutional then they are not authorized to remove it from my paycheck. If someone besides the US govt did it they would be locked up. When the US govt does it they get promoted
Click to expand...

You are free to sue the United States government. Again, your post illustrates the difference between an individual and society (government). You have given up partial economic sovereignty to be apart of this society. A social contract is fluid; we have the power to change it. It is disingenuous to freely give up partial economic sovereignty then scream "theft!" when your fellow citizens do not agree with your fiscal conservatism. There are plenty of other social contracts around the world which you could engage in if do not see the current one fit or to your liking. You could also take steps to change the current social contract you are in via voting or revolution.

nbakerld said:
So if your neighbor forcibly takes money from you to put on a fireworks show, you wouldn't call it theft, because you are able to enjoy the fruits of his spending?
Click to expand...

See above.

theFallGuy said:
And everyday they are telling me they need more more more. Well guess what, one day they will wake up and there won't be anyone left to tax. Then what are they going to do?
Click to expand...

I totally agree. We honestly can't raise too much more revenue over a consistent period. We have a spending problem. No doubt about it. If you look at this country, we have always had to have the sh*t hit the fan before we wake up and do something about it. Our saving grace, historically, has been that once our heads are out of our arses, we typically fix the problem fairly quickly and come back stronger than ever. Problem is, the sh*t hasn't hit the fan yet and I am not looking forward to the day that it does.
 
#383
#383
theFallGuy said:
I'm not disagreeing that we need tax $$ to pay for defense (just about the only thing the gov't is actually given authority over under the constitution) and some basic needs such as fire and police. But everything else is theft. The amount of $$$ they take in is not necessary to pay for only defense and basic community needs. Where is all that $$ going? I don't see it at all. I'm for the complete abolishment of all social programs. I don't want to hear about "cutting them back and reform". Those are just empty words that politicians use. I think they should be abandoned.

Most libertarians I know want to abolish as much of the gov't as they can.
Click to expand...

I am one of those libertarians. However, it is a social contract, we have voted, it is not theft.

theFallGuy said:
And before you bring up public schools I'm for the complete privatization of public schools. Hell, we could even privatize jails. I'm fine with that too.
Click to expand...

I am too. :hi:

nbakerld said:
How do you define theft? Just because society allows government to take from us doesn't mean it's not theft. A "social contract" does not change the definition of theft.

You didn't answer this question:
Click to expand...

Theft from individual to individual or society based theft? First one is simple and you guys jumped on me with that definition. Society based theft would be taxation without representation. Hello Tea Party. (The real one of course)
 
#384
#384
utvolpj said:
Johnson but of course he never stood a chance with the GOP
Click to expand...

Johnson Hung Out to Dry by GOP joins Libertarian Party

Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson has been “hung out to dry” by the GOP establishment and that is the reason he is likely to leave the party and run for the presidency as a libertarian, he says.

The former New Mexico governor tells Newsmax.TV he has faced a Catch-22 situation because his name has not appeared in the opinion polls that decide whether he has enough support to get him a place in the party’s debates, which means he has not been able to gain the exposure that could have
Click to expand...

(visit the link for the full news article)
 
#385
#385
A bit long, but a good video entitled "You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo[/youtube]
 
#387
#387
utvolpj said:
taxes over and above the powers of the fed govt are theft. There are certain things they do that require input from all Americans (actually about 50% but that's fine). We are not in this huge hole because they are building extra roads or bridges



which I could probably accept as long as the ledger hit zero each year
Click to expand...

I mean, I really don't know what more Ron Paul could do. If he brings the money back to his district (money that was going to be spent somewhere anyways), then he's "buying votes" and no different than any other politician based on that single issue.

If he brought the actual cash back to the district and paid each citizen back, I'm sure that wouldn't be interpreted as vote buying. :crazy: Of course, he couldn't just stroke out a check to his constituents anyways, but if he were legally able to do so, apparently, some of you would have an issue with that.

What other thing could he have done with money that was going to be spent anyways besides veto the spending bills (which he has done the overwhelming number of times anyways and it still passes).
 
#389
#389
PKT_VOL said:
Taxes are apart of the general social contract between the people and their government to promote the greater good of the people. The people use the roads, bridges, buildings, and schools which are paid by the tax dollars. It is not thief. Not even close. This is not to say that there isn't thief that goes on at the government level. That is mostly laundering, as you alluded to. Look at the "green" investment of this administration as an example. However, to imply that all earmarks are thief is nothing more than interjecting your subjective notion of waste. I am guilty of such thoughts as well from time to time.
Click to expand...

What is this contract you speak of? When did I sign it? What is the small print? Can you show me a copy? Are minors obligated since they can't legally sign contracts? Or, is it possible, it is not a contract at all, but rather is a theory espoused by statists to justify theft?

PKT_VOL said:
I am one of those libertarians. However, it is a social contract, we have voted, it is not theft.
...
Theft from individual to individual or society based theft? First one is simple and you guys jumped on me with that definition. Society based theft would be taxation without representation. Hello Tea Party. (The real one of course)
Click to expand...

When did we (you and I) vote on this social contract? I am not represented in congress. None of the representatives in the house or the senate from my area are chosen by me. None of them believe or stand for what I believe and stand for. None of them vote in a manner consistent with my will. Ergo, I have no meaningful representation.
 
#390
#390
RespectTradition said:
What is this contract you speak of? When did I sign it? What is the small print? Can you show me a copy? Are minors obligated since they can't legally sign contracts? Or, is it possible, it is not a contract at all, but rather is a theory espoused by statists to justify theft?
Click to expand...

I guess the term social just went straight over your head. You do not have an individual contract with your government nor is it in writing. You are also not completely sovereign. In order to be apart of this society, which I assume you both want and have actively engaged in since birth, you are required to give up partial sovereignty to your fellow man to promote the greater good for community (society/everybody). If you do not see this or understand this then I cannot help you. However, judging from your other posts, you are a seemingly bright guy. You know you are not fully sovereign. You know that you have given up partial sovereignty whether you want to admit it or not. Most of the time, the relative amount of sovereignty which you surrender is overshadowed by benefits of giving up that sovereignty. The problem arises when the government does something which you do not like. Then all of a sudden, the individual is not apart of a grander social contract, does not have his voice in a representative democracy, and taxes/spending is now a mono e mono transaction. You can't have it both ways. If you want to be truly sovereign, there are many uninhabited islands in the Pacific Ocean which you could move to. There you could write a contract with yourself. Or, if you would still like to be apart of a civilization, you can move to another country. I shall forewarn you that those countries too have an evil social contract as well. However, their social contract may be more to your liking. The third option is to change the social contract of the society in which you live. You have the power to vote, the power of persuasion, and the power to start a revolution.



RespectTradition said:
When did we (you and I) vote on this social contract? I am not represented in congress. None of the representatives in the house or the senate from my area are chosen by me. None of them believe or stand for what I believe and stand for. None of them vote in a manner consistent with my will. Ergo, I have no meaningful representation.
Click to expand...

We did not vote explicitly for or against it. We either concede to it or not. We both have conceded. Like I stated above, you have the power to change it or disengage from it you see fit.

As for my representation, I have the right to vote in our representative democracy. I exercise that right in every election regardless of which level of government the election is for. Most people don't. If they vote at all, they vote in the "big elections". That's fine; their prerogative. I too can claim that there is not a single representative in either house of Congress or the White House which share all my political beliefs. Like you, I wish there were, but that is fine. I have freely entered a society in which I have given up my ability to be totally sovereign in exchange for a voice in a representative democratic form of governance. Unfortunately, my fellow countrymen do not agree with my political ideology or economic stance. This does not mean that I do not have adequate representation. I means that I am in the minority. Big difference. By your logic, there should be a representative in Congress which wholeheartedly supports the views of Jared Lee Loughner, Micheal Moore, or any other nut-job. There is a reason why we have a representative democracy in stead of a direct democracy.
 
#391
#391
PKT_VOL said:
I guess the term social just went straight over your head. You do not have an individual contract with your government nor is it in writing. You are also not completely sovereign. In order to be apart of this society, which I assume you both want and have actively engaged in since birth, you are required to give up partial sovereignty to your fellow man to promote the greater good for community (society/everybody). If you do not see this or understand this then I cannot help you. However, judging from your other posts, you are a seemingly bright guy. You know you are not fully sovereign. You know that you have given up partial sovereignty whether you want to admit it or not. Most of the time, the relative amount of sovereignty which you surrender is overshadowed by benefits of giving up that sovereignty. The problem arises when the government does something which you do not like. Then all of a sudden, the individual is not apart of a grander social contract, does not have his voice in a representative democracy, and taxes/spending is now a mono e mono transaction. You can't have it both ways. If you want to be truly sovereign, there are many uninhabited islands in the Pacific Ocean which you could move to. There you could write a contract with yourself. Or, if you would still like to be apart of a civilization, you can move to another country. I shall forewarn you that those countries too have an evil social contract as well. However, their social contract may be more to your liking. The third option is to change the social contract of the society in which you live. You have the power to vote, the power of persuasion, and the power to start a revolution.





We did not vote explicitly for or against it. We either concede to it or not. We both have conceded. Like I stated above, you have the power to change it or disengage from it you see fit.

As for my representation, I have the right to vote in our representative democracy. I exercise that right in every election regardless of which level of government the election is for. Most people don't. If they vote at all, they vote in the "big elections". That's fine; their prerogative. I too can claim that there is not a single representative in either house of Congress or the White House which share all my political beliefs. Like you, I wish there were, but that is fine. I have freely entered a society in which I have given up my ability to be totally sovereign in exchange for a voice in a representative democratic form of governance. Unfortunately, my fellow countrymen do not agree with my political ideology or economic stance. This does not mean that I do not have adequate representation. I means that I am in the minority. Big difference. By your logic, there should be a representative in Congress which wholeheartedly supports the views of Jared Lee Loughner, Micheal Moore, or any other nut-job. There is a reason why we have a representative democracy in stead of a direct democracy.
Click to expand...

As for the matter of representation, if no one is arguing for your point of view, how can you say that you are represented? Also, I think the idea of representation by geographic division is stupid. Candidates should be voted on by ideas. I may be in the minority in any given locale, but I am still part of a rather large group. Everyone should vote for the people they want to represent them, regardless of where you live, and those people should get votes based on how large their constituency is. Pipe dream? Yup. Still would be a heck of a lot fairer.

As to Social Contract Theory: There is a necessary amount of sublimation of the individual's will that is required within any society. However, the amount necessary is not that hard to determine and anything that exceeds that amount is criminal, even if it is not illegal. My authority to exercise my will ends when it becomes an attack on you. Like the old idea: 'your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.' Society has a right to govern itself, but only to prevent the initiation of force, theft, coercion, and fraud. That means that any government program or law that goes beyond that is not legitimate. To take from me (tax) and use it to fund illegitimate programs is a form of theft, because illegitimate taking is theft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#397
#397
volfanjustin said:
If Ron Paul were to win the nomination (which is very unlikely) I would sit at home on election day.
Click to expand...

Come on man. That type of thinking is just stupid.

So I don't agree with everything Romney says, or Newt, or Ron Paul.

But, if one of them gets the nomination, it's my job to support them and vote this fool Obama out. What good does it do this country to put Obama in for another 4 years just to prove some stupid point that you don't like Ron Paul or that you don't like Romney or whatever. I don't agree with that line of thinking.

American can't afford another 4 years of Obama.
 
#398
#398
theFallGuy said:
Come on man. That type of thinking is just stupid.

So I don't agree with everything Romney says, or Newt, or Ron Paul.

But, if one of them gets the nomination, it's my job to support them and vote this fool Obama out.
Click to expand...

actually that kind of thinking is how Obama ended up winning and why the GOP is running such crap candidates. If voters keep doing that then nothing truly changes
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#400
#400
theFallGuy said:
Come on man. That type of thinking is just stupid.

So I don't agree with everything Romney says, or Newt, or Ron Paul.

But, if one of them gets the nomination, it's my job to support them and vote this fool Obama out. What good does it do this country to put Obama in for another 4 years just to prove some stupid point that you don't like Ron Paul or that you don't like Romney or whatever. I don't agree with that line of thinking.

American can't afford another 4 years of Obama.
Click to expand...

I don't think America can afford 4 more minutes of Obama but when it comes to foreign policy issues I don't see a dimes worth of difference in Paul and Obama.

I don't agree on all issues with the other candidates but I could and would vote for either one of the others.

Thankfully this is a non issue for me because he has a core group of supporters but he has no chance to branch out and gain any more support than he currently has.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top