Is Ron Paul a "whack job"?

Had to be done....

IMO, he always sounded like a crazy uncle when the topics switched to anything resembling foreign policy. As much as some would like it, we can't just pull back behind walls and disengage from the world.

Regarding Kyles' reference to the founders, it's a lot easier to be non-interventionist when 1) the rest of the world is months away by sea and 2) you have a whole continent to explore. Even then we intervened when it suited our interests (e.g. Barbary pirates).

On domestic policy issues I respect Paul's ideas a great deal. But that's not enough when you're running for president. (I'd say that I hope his presence moved the other candidates toward the libertarian position on domestic issues, but I know it hasn't.)

For the record Kyle, I wasn't trying to tick you off with the subject. I was simply attempting to move the discussion to JSID. But the helpful moderators did that for us.

KeithK
I was simply attempting to move the discussion to JSID.

A noble effort, Keith. At the very least, this wipes a record of a Harvard victory off the face of the hockey forum. I just noticed that the thread was split, so nevermind. Good job by the mod.

RichH
At the very least, this wipes a record of a Harvard [Beanpot] victory off the face of the hockey forum.

Something that we will no doubt not have to worry about for another ten years.

KeithK

RichH
At the very least, this wipes a record of a Harvard [Beanpot] victory off the face of the hockey forum.

Something that we will no doubt not have to worry about for another ten years.

I tried to write "But they could still beat BC!" with a straight face, but I simply couldn't do it.

Kyle

KeithK
Had to be done....

IMO, he always sounded like a crazy uncle when the topics switched to anything resembling foreign policy. As much as some would like it, we can't just pull back behind walls and disengage from the world.

He's arguing for trading in peace without barriers. He's not an isolationist, although the establishment media sure likes to portray him as one.

And I reject the implied assertion that 'everything's changed.' The principles on which this country was founded are still solid principles, yet for the last 150 years, we've slowly but surely thrown them all out for the mercantilism of old England. Most countries in the world get by just fine without stationing hundreds of thousands of their own military in 150 other countries. Why do we feel a need to? What makes us different?

When you answer these questions, you'll begin to understand the foundation of the American empire, and why it is unsustainable in the long term.

FTR, I'm not a Paulite: he does hold some positions I disagree with. Nonetheless, he's the closest we've gotten in one hundred years and probably the closest we'll get for another hundred.

Regarding Kyles' reference to the founders, it's a lot easier to be non-interventionist when 1) the rest of the world is months away by sea and 2) you have a whole continent to explore. Even then we intervened when it suited our interests (e.g. Barbary pirates).

I don't think anyone would argue against using retaliatory force against those who initiate force. I certainly wouldn't. Your homework assignment is to distinguish the Barbary pirates from Iraq (easy) and from all the other countries in which we have troops stationed (even easier).

(I'd say that I hope his presence moved the other candidates toward the libertarian position on domestic issues, but I know it hasn't.)

And you'd be right. The GOP will have to suffer a crushing, coalition-rending defeat to even have the opportunity to embrace the core principles of small government, federalism, non-interventionism, free markets, and liberty that would allow it to win once again. Hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.

Kyle

krose

KeithK

RichH
At the very least, this wipes a record of a Harvard [Beanpot] victory off the face of the hockey forum.

Something that we will no doubt not have to worry about for another ten years.

I tried to write "But they could still beat BC!" with a straight face, but I simply couldn't do it.

Kyle

Besides, then this thread would start taking on a "Men's Hockey" flavor and someone would have to move it to the other forum.

Yes. QED.

Removing annoying name from the front page (last post field).

Ron Paul and his fellow libertarians are starting their own community.

Yes, it is in Texas.

You do not have to pay for the utilities if you don't want to have electricity and the like in your home.

Rita
You do not have to pay for the utilities if you don't want to have electricity and the like in your home.

Isn't that the same as it is everywhere? I stop paying Con Edison, they stop giving me electricity?

Is it me, or does "Paulville" sound like communism?

Jeff Hopkins '82
Is it me, or does "Paulville" sound like communism?

I think it's just you.

IMO, it's a dumb name, but if it gets freedom lovers living in closer proximity, thus increasing their political power, I'm all for it.

Kyle

krose

Jeff Hopkins '82
Is it me, or does "Paulville" sound like communism?

I think it's just you.

IMO, it's a dumb name, but if it gets freedom lovers living in closer proximity, thus increasing their political power, I'm all for it.

Kyle

What, as opposed to all the rest of us freedom haters?

Josh '99
What, as opposed to all the rest of us freedom haters?

In my experience, most people don't understand what freedom really is. They only understand what a lifetime of nationalistic government propaganda tells them freedom is.

Freedom is very simple: it's the right to be left alone to pursue happiness without interference from others, as long as you respect others' rights to do the same.

It seems pretty clear to me that you don't need 40,000,000 words/100,000 pages/150 copies of The Lord of the Rings---that is, the size of the US Code---to describe that.

Kyle

krose

Josh '99
What, as opposed to all the rest of us freedom haters?

In my experience, most people don't understand what freedom really is. They only understand what a lifetime of nationalistic government propaganda tells them freedom is.

Freedom is very simple: it's the right to be left alone to pursue happiness without interference from others, as long as you respect others' rights to do the same.

It seems pretty clear to me that you don't need 40,000,000 words/100,000 pages/150 copies of The Lord of the Rings---that is, the size of the US Code---to describe that.

A good portion of those 40,000,000 words are necessary to enforce the "respecting other people's rights to be left alone" part of the equation. History teaches that people disagree a lot about what that means.

ugarte

krose

Josh '99
What, as opposed to all the rest of us freedom haters?

In my experience, most people don't understand what freedom really is. They only understand what a lifetime of nationalistic government propaganda tells them freedom is.

Freedom is very simple: it's the right to be left alone to pursue happiness without interference from others, as long as you respect others' rights to do the same.

It seems pretty clear to me that you don't need 40,000,000 words/100,000 pages/150 copies of The Lord of the Rings---that is, the size of the US Code---to describe that.

A good portion of those 40,000,000 words are necessary to enforce the "respecting other people's rights to be left alone" part of the equation. History teaches that people disagree a lot about what that means.

Does not.

ugarte

krose

Josh '99
What, as opposed to all the rest of us freedom haters?

In my experience, most people don't understand what freedom really is. They only understand what a lifetime of nationalistic government propaganda tells them freedom is.

Freedom is very simple: it's the right to be left alone to pursue happiness without interference from others, as long as you respect others' rights to do the same.

It seems pretty clear to me that you don't need 40,000,000 words/100,000 pages/150 copies of The Lord of the Rings---that is, the size of the US Code---to describe that.

A good portion of those 40,000,000 words are necessary to enforce the "respecting other people's rights to be left alone" part of the equation. History teaches that people disagree a lot about what that means.

I'd bet that very few of the words in the US code have much to do with that. Most of them have to do with telling people how to live their lives and businesses and with achieving various social goals that the majority (or at least the majority of leaders) have decided are valuable.

Whether the structure of our government is a good thing or not is certainly a valid subject for debate. But if you accept Kyle's definition of freedom and that preserving this freedom should be the highest goal of society it's hard to argue the efficiency and utility of the US code.

KeithK
Whether the structure of our government is a good thing or not is certainly a valid subject for debate. But if you accept Kyle's definition of freedom and that preserving this freedom should be the highest goal of society it's hard to argue the efficiency and utility of the US code.

If you accept that preserving freedom should be the only goal of society, it's hard to argue the efficiency and utility of the US code.

Hell, it's hard to argue the efficiency of the US code, period. But that's a different story.

KeithK
Whether the structure of our government is a good thing or not is certainly a valid subject for debate.

But what IS a good thing is that it's free cone day at Ben & Jerry's!!!

Threadjacked you back, bitches.

Josh '99

Rita
You do not have to pay for the utilities if you don't want to have electricity and the like in your home.

Isn't that the same as it is everywhere? I stop paying Con Edison, they stop giving me electricity?

Most places you can't get a certificate of occupancy if you don't have electric power, water, and so forth.