Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Tomorrows the day boys, I finally get to cast my vote for the guy we have all been talking about ( for the most part, or at least a little bit of the time).

I say he takes Kentucky pretty easily. Not only have we elected his son Rand into office, but I've been talking to A LOT of people, and haven't come across one person that thinks of Romney as anything more than a snake in the grass.

 

Kings thought of themselves as not subject to human authority but rather deriving their right to rule directly from the will of God. Some even thought of themselves as god. So in this context, the idea of a king being equal to 'the people' was radical for the time it was written.

The equality referenced was like bringing the king down from his lofty godlike throne and bringing 'the people' up to a more dignified place. This is the proper context in which to understand 'equality' as expressed in the Decleration of Independence.

Don't you agree that bringing the king down from his lofty place, to a place of equality is more desirable than the extreme inequality that was common not very long ago individual?

 

That was me who said that. And I completely agree with your post.

 

I most certainly do, and this post is one in which it could be said that we agree.


ed: A recent YouTube post of a verbal exchange between a teacher and a student at North Rowan High School in North Carolina might indicate that not all persons would agree with this post. A search on "Teacher Yells at Student" on YouTube provides the source, and there are several to choose from, some with the audio cleaned up , but the original is longer and perhaps more informative if you can understand the words spoken beneath the noise.

 

Add me to the list who agree.

ed: Isn't it ironic that the argument seems to be along the lines of Corporations and the rich having control or getting greater control of our government, while both Obama and Romney are receiving large contributions from Corporations and the rich, while Ron Paul has to get by with very little, if any at all support from either Corporations or the rich who he and his views are claimed to benefit most? Would the White House be inundated by visits from lobbyists if Ron Paul was elected President? As his support comes mainly from ordinary citizens, who would he feel most beholding to? Is it a wonder that neither the Democrat party nor the Republican party or the MSM will give him more than token recognition?

 

So then, in what sense are 'all men equal' when comparing corporate persons with non-corporate persons?

 

I didn't know I stole your material. It was purely coincidental. What was the post number?

 

1299. You didn't steal anything it's up there for everyone, isn't it?

 

Remember how Ron Paul could never get those delegates? Yep, it's still happening...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3t-T_7bmbk"]Ron Paul Gets 12 Of 13 Delegates In Minnesota 2012 Presidential Race - YouTube

 

Your post is like making the statement that "1 plus 1 equals 2" and then asking "how much is 1 plus 1?".

 

Indie

I’m only pointing out that my solutions involve helping people while your first thought on subject involved the breaking of someone’s leg.

That my ideas are more about lessening disadvantage but your first thoughts are about creating disadvantage (with violence).

 

Indie

You do realise that the whole ‘race and runners’ is only a metaphor don’t you? That the race is a metaphor for life under your preferred system and that the runners are metaphors for the advantaged and disadvantaged?

I was only using it because you seemed to be putting forward the idea that in the competition for position, fulfilment and health in life between the advantaged and disadvantaged was in some way fairly matched, that the advantaged ‘winner’ is justified in the rewards of ‘winning’ because they are the better competitor not because they have an advantage.

I bring this up because you seem to be arguing that the only options for the disadvantaged are to withdraw from the race or run with a broken leg, in life as in the race.

 

Indie

LOL so you do have a preferred system.

That is fine - but as pointed out some are advantaged and other disadvantaged as to fulfilling their potential ignoring that fact does not mean it goes away.

Two groups with the same potential where one is advantaged and the other disadvantaged are unlikely to have the same outcome.

Is the child responsible for their position? You’ve repeated said no but your only solution to the problem is not to help the child but seemingly to either forcibly remove it from its parents or to sterilise the disadvantaged so they cannot have children.

Is a baby responsible for being born into disadvantage? Has it made the decision to be born into disadvantage? Again you have said no to both those - but again you offer no solution it seems beyond forcibly removing such children from their parents or the sterilisation of the disadvantaged. I’m not sure what kind of lessen that teaches people.

Are you saying you think your solutions are reasonable and rational?

 

letlovin

Oh the Social Darwinist approach (you do know that Social Darwinism is a pseudoscience, in other words quackery, don’t you?)

It argued that a person’s or groups social position had nothing to do with complex socio-economic factors and was simply a matter of ‘natural selection’. The disadvantaged were meant to be disadvantaged because they were inferior human beings and the advantaged were meant to be advantaged because they were superior to others.

It was ‘natural’ just as in a baseball game the seven foot person would have the advantage over the shorter person. The socially advantaged were just the socially seven foot giants in a society made up mainly of pigmies.

It was an idea much favoured and promoted by wealth and the wealthy because it seemed to justify their position and ideas.

The argument went on that since it was ‘natural’ nothing could be done to help the disadvantaged rise from their ‘natural’ position; it was therefore no use spending tax money on social programmes meant to help them since they couldn’t be helped. This lead to the view of some that nothing should be done to hinder this ‘natural selection’ that the disadvantaged should be allowed to die out naturally rather than having their lives artificially extended through social programmes or healthcare, of course some go further and think that what they see as inferior people or groups should just be eliminated.

So let us take what I said earlier about infant mortality and health, from the Social Darwinist standpoint the reason for higher levels of infant mortality and poor health amongst the lower classes compared to those at the top has nothing to do with socio-economic factors but is all down to the lower groups being of inferior stock.

Of course Social Darwinism is hogwash, throughout history the advantaged have claimed some reason for their position, from it being down to divine will or better ‘breeding’.

My view is that the ‘baseball game’ of life is between players of roughly the same potential, but that one always has the advantage of scoring into a basket that is much lower to the ground that the others. The game is rigged in favour of one group.

That it is not a natural advantage but a structural advantage - which the advantaged do their best to keep.

 

The leg breaking was presented by one of your supporters, not by me, if you look back. And I have no problems with your solutions, only with how you would force their application.

 

No, Bal, I just don't see things as being as unfair as you like to present them.

 

You could say that I develop a system to adapt and meet the circumstances that exist which provides results that I find acceptable, and I openly share it with others who may use it if they wish, and if they don't that's their choice.

And neither do two groups with the same potentials and the same advantages (money) always have the same outcome.

Are strangers who live great distances from the child more responsible than the couple who by their own choosing bring forth the birth of this disadvantaged child?

The fairest solution is to allow private charity to provide the solutions, without government involvement.

Yes, I would say that my solutions are much more rational and reasonable than looking to government to apply force upon the citizens as the solution.

In more ways than one, Ronald Reagan was factually correct when he said "government is not the solution, government is the problem." Looking at most every country today would seem to be adequate proof of that.

 

Bal,

You seem to be mixing up baseball and basketball, but since you mentioned scoring into a basket, I might insert that the leading scorer for the local High school where I lived was the shortest member of the team, stretching to achieve a height of 5' 8" or 170 cm if you prefer.

Who on the Left created the term "Social Darwinism"? Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was not a theory on society, but on the evolutionary process by which new species were created. YOU are the only one who seems to insert the term, and with malicious intent.

Recognize as fact that societies are creations of individuals who are in many ways similar, while also differing in many ways, which allows them access to their needs and wants in the market place. Governments become necessary as a form of protection from both outsiders and members of the community who are disruptive or violent. Governments, of a free people, are themselves governed by the people who through their consent provide the powers allowed to be exercised, and the limits which should not be exceeded without their express consent.

The colonies declared their independence from Great Britain and your then King recognizing that no man is entitled by birth to rule over another man, and I would also say that neither is any man/woman entitled to rule over others as a result of an election.

In bringing the original colonies together to form a nation, the U.S. Constitution was created setting forth the basic rules of how government at the Federal level would apply to both the sovereign individuals or people and the sovereign States. The Constitution is intended to enumerate both the powers held by the Federal government, and the limits within which it must be constrained. The intent is to not allow either a majority to rule nor a minority to rule, but only for government to operate within the confines allowed by both the people, directly represented by their House Representatives, and the States, represented by the Senators. In this way the sovereignty of the people is recognized, and the sovereignty of the States is recognized, and any additional powers to the Federal government is derived only as an act of both the people and the States through the amendment process of the U.S. Constitution.

That is what many of us would like to return to, and once again allow the voters not only a voice in who will represent them, but also how they will allow themselves to be governed by those they allow to represent them. If people in one or more States wished to be governed under a Communist or Socialist form of State government they could without breaking any Federal laws and without funding as the original tax law was written, States would have to be more fiscally responsible, and the Federal government could avoid debt with the possible exception of wartime.

 

I'd call those corporate person attributes 'godlike qualities.' Wouldn't you individual?

You never addressed in what sense 'all men are equal' when comparing corporate persons with non-corporate persons.

 

The people attribute of a corporation you seem to be ignoring is the investors and workers, and to a degree also the consumers of its products and/or services. And I see nothing Godlike, or even factually accurate in the quote included in your post.

I did address the equalities of persons and corporations being that they are both answerable to the laws and taxes, and corporations often more so than a person would be.