NationStates Jolt Archive

Just to see how much of a fringe nutcase Ron Paul really is, I've decided to start this poll.*

If you could vote in the US elections next November and you had to pick between Ron Paul or the NSG poster of your choice (other than yourself), who would you pick?

Or, to ask the question differently, is there someone here in NSG who would make a better US President than Ron Paul?

Vote away...

*poll created with the support of the Anti-Paulbot Foundation

I would vote for Lunatic Goofballs. :)

I would vote for Lunatic Goofballs. :)

I would do my first State of the Union Address in the buff to show the American People that I have nothing to hide. :)

Harder question: can you think of an NSer who wouldn't make a better president than Ron Paul?

Harder question: can you think of an NSer who wouldn't make a better president than Ron Paul?
FreedomAndGlory!

FreedomAndGlory!

Hey, I said that it was harder, not that it was hard. :)

Harder question: can you think of an NSer who wouldn't make a better president than Ron Paul?

Me, maybe? I am a nutter. :D Hail LG!

I would do my first State of the Union Address in the buff to show the American People that I have nothing to hide. :)

But then, everyone will know that you are a............Hermaphrodite!! :eek:

But then, everyone will know that you are a............Hermaphrodite!! :eek:

From his phrasing, I thought "eunuch."

Me, maybe?

I'm undecided as to whether a lack of principles is worse in a president than a firm commitment to totally awful principles.

I'm undecided as to whether a lack of principles is worse in a president than a firm commitment to totally awful principles.

I am in favor of legalizing prostitution...evil, yes, I know. Not that I could, even if I became president. :(

My main drawback would that I would not know what I am doing.

But then, everyone will know that you are a............Hermaphrodite!! :eek:

If I were, I'd be too busy screwing myself. :)

From his phrasing, I thought "eunuch."

They're still intact. Battered, but intact. :)

I am in favor of legalizing prostitution...evil, yes, I know.

Not at all. Certainly not unambiguously so.

Indeed, a very good direction for public policy to take, if it is accompanied by broader social reforms in other areas (like improving the economic position of poor women.)

My main drawback would that I would not know what I am doing.

Neither would Ron Paul.

I would support Imperio Mexicano over Ron Paul, given the chance. Paul is too moderate (yes, I am typing this with a straight face.)

I would support Imperio Mexicano over Ron Paul, given the chance. Paul is too moderate (yes, I am typing this with a straight face.)

You're Greill's reincarnation, aren't you?

You're Greill's reincarnation, aren't you?

I wasn't aware that I was hiding it.

No, because Griell praised some sort of paternal autocracy while Venndee acts as if any governmental system at all is some sort of police state.

Furthermore, I would vote for myself many times before I would vote for Ron Paul. I have it on good authority that others would vote for me too.

I wasn't aware that I was hiding it.

You aren't. You just also aren't shouting it so loudly that those of us with continually second-guessing minds can be sure without direct confirmation. :)

I'd vote for you in a heartbeat over Ron Paul. Imperio Mexicano too, however much we've annoyed each other lately.

No, because Griell praised some sort of paternal autocracy while Venndee acts as if any governmental system at all is some sort of police state.
.

Apparently my memory sucks even more than I thought it did.

You're aren't. You just also aren't shouting it so loudly that those of us with continually second-guessing minds can be sure without direct confirmation. :)

I'd vote for you in a heartbeat over Ron Paul. Imperio Mexicano too, however much we've annoyed each other lately.

Fair enough. :) And thank you for your vote of confidence; I will not look that gift horse in the mouth. Rest assured I will say in turn that I think you have more integrity than the vast majority of candidates for the presidential election.

Smunkee for President.

Lunatic Goofballs for vice.

Okay, so which NSGer is going to be the latest shallow politcal e-phenomenon to hit the interweb?

Smunkee for President.

Lunatic Goofballs for vice.

two clowns in office? isn't that basically what's going on now?:D

two clowns in office? isn't that basically what's going on now?:D

No.

One's a clown, and the other scares Satan shitless.

No.

One's a clown, and the other scares Satan shitless.

:eek: Satan has shit? I bet he thinks it don't stink too.

also, I need to go to bed now.

two clowns in office? isn't that basically what's going on now?:D

http://www.appletreeblog.com/wp-content/2007/10/bush-clown.jpg

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/Clown-Dick-Cheney--23702-thumb.jpg

I would vote for Lunatic Goofballs. :)

That was my first though, too. And second, third, etc.

There used to be a Libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) region here in NationStates with members I might consider for the job. Unfortunately, they've all disappeared and what's left appears to think that Fred Thompson is the best choice ("at least he's pro-market!").


...


I'd make a few nominations from NS General, but I know they're all far too principled to take the job.

Im afraid I couldnt vote for LG.

We're waiting for a clown to leave office, not enter it.

There used to be a Libertarian region here in NationStates with members I might consider for the job. Unfortunately, they've all disappeared and what's left appears to think that Fred Thompson is the best choice ("at least he's pro-market!").
Wait... how can you possibly want to associate in any way, shape or form with libertarians, given your economic score on the Political Compass?

I vote Lunatic Goofballs for President over Ron Paul., most definitely. He would be a clown that makes everybody laugh instead of scream, like the one we currently have does.

Lunatic Goofballs for vice.

Hasn't LG always been for vice? Of the chaotic sort. :p

Wait... how can you possibly want to associate in any way, shape or form with libertarians, given your economic score on the Political Compass?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13335079&postcount=34

To be a Libertarian used to mean something. Then about 7 years ago, all the xenophobes, war mongers, and corporate welfare statists started oozing out from between the cracks. Or they were always there, just more quiet, which is an even more scary thought.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13335079&postcount=34

To be a Libertarian used to mean something. Then about 7 years ago, all the xenophobes, war mongers, and corporate welfare statists started oozing out from between the cracks. Or they were always there, just more quiet, which is an even more scary thought.
Well, if my experience with internet libertarians is any indication, they were always there. I've never met any pro-market libertarian who seemed to have any affinity for the kind of decentralized autonomous communities that I presume you support. Libertarians always struck me as rather totalitarian ideological fanatics trying to establish a police state whose only function is to provide hired thugs to protect corporations and beat the crap out of anyone who dares touch their property.

In other words, libertarians are pretty much 19th century Victorian industrialists without the conservative social mores. They are exactly the kind of people that I would expect anarchists like yourself to hate with a passion.

Some libertarians, like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, even go as far as to support absolute monarchy and practically a return to feudalism.

I've never met any pro-market libertarian who seemed to have any affinity for the kind of decentralized autonomous communities that I presume you support.


We exist and we want our ideology back.


They are exactly the kind of people that I would expect anarchists like yourself to hate with a passion.


Hate is useless and dangerous. I do reject their ideology, however, exactly because it is not libertarian.


Some libertarians, like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, even go as far as to support absolute monarchy and practically a return to feudalism.


I'm not impressed by the Austrian "school" either, but I can name a whole host of "socialists" who don't fare much better on the monarchical feudalism scale.

I've never met any pro-market libertarian who seemed to have any affinity for the kind of decentralized autonomous communities that I presume you support.
Not sure what you mean by "affinity", but I generally try to engage them with an open mind. The problem is that you very rarely get a left-libertarian to talk about the down-to-earth issues associated with living in such communities. We have some sort of idea what living in a market-libertarian world might be like, because it would be much more similar to today than a left-libertarian world. So it's fairly easy to pick problems and go from there - even though most problems people pick up aren't actually inherent in the market- or private property system.

All I tend to do is ask left-libertarians to confront the practicality (or lack of it) of their ideas. But the last thing I would want to do is restrict the right of people to try them out if they think they can make them work.

Libertarians always struck me as rather totalitarian ideological fanatics trying to establish a police state whose only function is to provide hired thugs to protect corporations and beat the crap out of anyone who dares touch their property.
I think you need to pay more attention. I'm about as vehemently opposed to the concept of a police state as one can be, since I'm a supporter of the "constitutional state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat)".

But yes, protecting my property is the sort of thing I expect a market-libertarian state to do, since I consider my property the physical manifestation of my quest to improve my life (and by extension that of others). I am my property as much as I am the sum of my experiences and choices in life.

Now, you can certainly disagree with that view. But what you can't do is be surprised at me wanting the state to protect private property.

There really is only one clash between our views that absolutely needs resolving in order to coexist, and that is the question of what happens to the property that exists at this point. Once that is settled, right-libs and left-libs can live in their own communities and coexist peacefully (provided the left-lib community can somehow make sure that its members don't encroach on the right-lib society).

Everything else is disagreement on a purely theoretical level, and hardly worthy of anyone's hatred.

Hasn't LG always been for vice? Of the chaotic sort. :p
Lunatic Goofballs has been the Eminence Grise of US Politics since Reagan.


BTW, so you're still here! Could you come to the Draftroom? I'm interested in your opinion on this:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=1771
That's an analysis of perspective high-efficiency turbine design. In part for aerospace applications; while I somewhat imagine the workings of the turbine itself, I'm not entirely sure of how some solutions and effects would change in an actual high subsonic speed environment.


P.S. Oh. But anyway.
.

Vote for me, I support welfare reform, removing all political parties (while keeping a free elctions) and a blender for everone!

The problem is that you very rarely get a left-libertarian to talk about the down-to-earth issues associated with living in such communities. We have some sort of idea what living in a market-libertarian world might be like, because it would be much more similar to today than a left-libertarian world.


Getting people to understand that "left-" and "market-" are complementary, or at least not necessarily contradictory, can also be problematic.


I think you need to pay more attention. I'm about as vehemently opposed to the concept of a police state as one can be, since I'm a supporter of the "constitutional state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat)".


I think the "police state" line is a reference to those currents in "libertarian" thought calling for the abolishment of the state for the purpose of allowing individual property owners to police their property in what ever manner they see fit. This is the school of "libertarianism" which advocates the essential privatization of all police, military, court, and indeed of the law itself. The most likely result of such a scheme is the aristocratic police state to which the Rechtsstaat is opposed.

There are those who claim that civil liberties and the rule of law are an unjustified restriction on the use of private property. Naturally we agree that such people are hardly "libertarian" in any meaningful sense of the word.


...right-libs and left-libs can live in their own communities and coexist peacefully (provided the left-lib community can somehow make sure that its members don't encroach on the right-lib society).


Or vice versa.

Harder question: can you think of an NSer who wouldn't make a better president than Ron Paul?
Yo.

I don't really follow US politics that much anymore, but from this:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

Ron Paul looks like by far the best republican at least, and far less authoritarian then all the other republicans and most of the democrats. Now for me it's really a choice between him, Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. I'm not sure whether I would go for a shit economic policy but with a more liberal social policy (Kucinich and Gravel), or a much better economic policy but only a slightly less liberal social policy (Ron Paul).

http://www.appletreeblog.com/wp-content/2007/10/bush-clown.jpg

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/Clown-Dick-Cheney--23702-thumb.jpg

Now you know why I'm afraid of clowns.

I would vote for Lunatic Goofballs. :)

me too LG for President

Imperio Mexicano for president.

I think we can all agree more people would want me as President than Paul

Smunkee for President.

Lunatic Goofballs for vice.

That's what we need. A pro-vice president.

I'd probably prefer The Cat-Tribes over Ron Paul. There's nothing special about TCT in terms of what he believes, but he seems to have a firm understanding of the law, and I think would be at least competent.

Harder question: can you think of an NSer who wouldn't make a better president than Ron Paul?

Remote Observer(is he still around?)

If Drunk Commies Deleted was still here, could he have beaten Ron Paul.

I would vote for Lunatic Goofballs. :)
I would do my first State of the Union Address in the buff to show the American People that I have nothing to hide. :)

I second Wilgrove's nomination :D

I fear that this thread has been formed under the assumption that Ron Paul is not on NSG.

Ron Paul is everywhere.

Ron Paul is.

Ron Paul.

*short circuits*

two clowns in office? isn't that basically what's going on now?:D

See, I read that as saying LG would be in charge of Vice, not that he'd be the Vice President.

But that's just me I guess.

See, I read that as saying LG would be in charge of Vice, not that he'd be the Vice President.

But that's just me I guess.

You would be right.

Ron Paul, hands down. I haven't seen anyone on these forums I'd like as President.

I fear that this thread has been formed under the assumption that Ron Paul is not on NSG.

Ron Paul is everywhere.

Ron Paul is.

Ron Paul.

*short circuits*

True. In fact, we are all really just different personalities of the schizophrenic normally called Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, hands down. I haven't seen anyone on these forums I'd like as President.

You don't have to like me. You just have to laugh. Or the Secret Service will drop by with duct tape and feathers. Then you will laugh! Oh, yes you will laugh! :D

True. In fact, we are all really just different personalities of the schizophrenic normally called Ron Paul.

Lol if that is the case Ron Paul is one scary dude. ;)

Lol if that is the case Ron Paul is one scary dude. ;)

Yeah he's freaky alright.

After all he believes:
Seperation of Church and State is a lie.
AIDs isn't caused by HIV.
Being Gay takes 20 years off of your life expectancy.
Abortions Cause Breast Cancer.
Evolution in schools is a plot by atheists to destroy religion.

If I were, I'd be too busy screwing myself. :)

Better than the taxpayer! :p
Ayup, and if LG's not it, then The Cat-Tribe(s?).
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13336190&postcount=46

Ron Paul is not a fringe nutjob. He's a good candidate.

Pretty much any NSGer would be better than Ron Paul.

Well, if my experience with internet libertarians is any indication, they were always there.*koff*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian#History

Ron Paul is not a fringe nutjob. He's a good candidate.

For fringe nutjobs. :)

Remote Observer(is he still around?)

Mr. "Killing Muslims is better than sex" is gone, thank God.

Getting people to understand that "left-" and "market-" are complementary, or at least not necessarily contradictory, can also be problematic.
Mmmh, sort of. I just really have an issue with anything based on the LTV, because unlike exchange-based valuation it needs to be imposed in some form or other. A market value can be arrived at without any outside interference by anyone, that only works for a LTV-value if both sides accept this, frankly artificial, limit.

This is the school of "libertarianism" which advocates the essential privatization of all police, military, court, and indeed of the law itself. The most likely result of such a scheme is the aristocratic police state to which the Rechtsstaat is opposed.
I would say the most likely result is Mogadishu.

Or vice versa.
We've had this discussion not too long ago, I think. Since right-libs naturally respect property rights, they'd have an issue with interfering with the left-lib community's property. For most schools of left-libertarianism, that doesn't work the other way around. If need confers some sort of right to property, regardless of who owns it previously, as the left-lib "leader" you'd have an issue preventing that diabetic from walking over to the other village and raiding the insulin cabinets.

A market value can be arrived at without any outside interference by anyone...


...but is more often arrived at via supply manipulation, government interference, or any other sorts of artificial limit. That door swings both ways. At any rate, what I really have an issue with is people who insist on seeing only one side of the coin. Yes, my labor alone doesn't mean much if nobody subjectively values the product. On the other hand, there is nothing to subjectively value in the first place if no one is willing or able to do the necessary labor.


I would say the most likely result is Mogadishu.


"But at least Somalia has a free market!"

Hey, at least you'll have an average of 48 years (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html#People) to enjoy "freedom."


Since right-libs naturally respect property rights...


In theory. The Mogadishu School, I think, demonstrates that this respect is hardly universal.



...they'd have an issue with interfering with the left-lib community's property.


Those I've encountered who have defended the likes of Pinochet and others because of the "evil commiez! :eek:" make me wonder.


If need confers some sort of right to property, regardless of who owns it previously, as the left-lib "leader" you'd have an issue preventing that diabetic from walking over to the other village and raiding the insulin cabinets.

I would have no such issue. Theft is not permissible. I advocate socialism and libertarianism exactly because I am tired of being a victim of theft.

Need serves as a motivation to engage in peaceful labor and/or trade in order to acquire what is needed. I think your vision of property in a left-libertarian society is constrained to a needlessly small box. Indeed, there is a multitude of practical examples of property, enterprise, and profit put to the purpose of securing social goods (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13335825&postcount=80) as opposed to the sheer accumulation of wealth for its own sake.

Mr. "Killing Muslims is better than sex" is gone, thank God.

Or at the very least not posting so openly. It's amazing what NSG is like when it's not cluttered with "Ebil Moslem Act of Teh Week" threads.

I've never met any pro-market libertarian who seemed to have any affinity for the kind of decentralized autonomous communities that I presume you support.
Not sure what you mean by "affinity", but I generally try to engage them with an open mind.
What I mean is that the attitude of most right-libertarians towards left-lib communes is "yeah, sure, if you're rich and you own a large plot of land, you can start a left-lib community there, within the confines of our right-lib society."

But the last thing I would want to do is restrict the right of people to try them out if they think they can make them work.
A person's right to try anything out is already restricted by the amount of property they own.

I think you need to pay more attention. I'm about as vehemently opposed to the concept of a police state as one can be, since I'm a supporter of the constitutional state.
A constitutional state is effectively a police state to anyone who is excluded from the political process.

And given that public opinion is overwhelmingly non-libertarian, the creation of a libertarian state would require the exclusion of large numbers of people from the political process. Some libertarians openly advocate a kind of constitutional dictatorship (and they typically cannot explain how they expect such a state to remain constitutional for more than 5 minutes).

But yes, protecting my property is the sort of thing I expect a market-libertarian state to do, since I consider my property the physical manifestation of my quest to improve my life (and by extension that of others). I am my property as much as I am the sum of my experiences and choices in life.
Let me see if I can try to understand your view:

I am my computer. I am the desk. I am the chain I sit on.

No, sorry, it still sounds like some kind of mystical mumbo-jumbo.

There really is only one clash between our views that absolutely needs resolving in order to coexist, and that is the question of what happens to the property that exists at this point.
Well, I am not a left-libertarian - or a libertarian of any sort - so there is more than that clash to be resolved. But even so, giving the vast amounts of property that currently exist, what to do with it all is a mighty big question.

This is the school of "libertarianism" which advocates the essential privatization of all police, military, court, and indeed of the law itself. The most likely result of such a scheme is the aristocratic police state to which the Rechtsstaat is opposed.
I would say the most likely result is Mogadishu.[/QUOTE]
Some "anarcho-capitalists" actually defend Somalia as a good example of the kind of society they advocate. Go figure.

Since right-libs naturally respect property rights, they'd have an issue with interfering with the left-lib community's property.
The LAW of a right-lib society would naturally enforce property rights within that society, but there is no reason to believe most people would naturally respect them beyond the requirements of the law (besides, most people in a right-lib society - like most people in any society - would likely be apolitical). The question is, would the law of a right-lib society punish someone for stealing something from the left-lib society next door?

Yeah he's freaky alright.

After all he believes:
Seperation of Church and State is a lie.
AIDs isn't caused by HIV.
Being Gay takes 20 years off of your life expectancy.
Abortions Cause Breast Cancer.
Evolution in schools is a plot by atheists to destroy religion.

The rest I can vaguely understand..... but what? Do you have a link?

The rest I can vaguely understand..... but what? Do you have a link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Positions

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative association of physicians, medical professionals and students, patients and others,[1] founded in 1943.[2] According to the AAPS's website, the organization is "dedicated to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine",[3] and to "supporting the principles of the free market in medical practice."[1] The motto of the AAPS is omnia pro aegroto which means "all for the patient."

The group had approximately 4,000 members in 2005.[4] Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey.[5] The executive director is Jane Orient, professor of clinical medicine at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel,[24][25] is the journal of the association. Its mission statement includes "… a commitment to publishing scholarly articles in defense of the practice of private medicine, the pursuit of integrity in medical research … Political correctness, dogmatism and orthodoxy will be challenged with logical reasoning, valid data and the scientific method." Articles in the journal are subject to a double-blind peer-review process.[26]

Articles published in the journal have argued:

that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,[27]
that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,[28]
that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not caused global warming,[29]
that HIV does not cause AIDS,[30]
that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[31]
A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for the existence of a link between abortion and breast cancer;[32][33] such a link has been rejected by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the mainstream scientific community.[34][35]

The journal is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed[36] nor the Web of Science.[37] The World Health Organization found that a 2003 article on vaccination published in the journal had "a number of limitations which undermine the conclusions drawn by the authors."[38]

Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[39]

Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[40]

--------
I'm suprised his asskissing Army of Paultards haven't edited this away yet.

Most NSG posters would make better presidents than Ron Paul. And yes, that's highly insulting to the man, considering... well... I really shouldn't say anymore.

Furthermore, I would vote for myself many times before I would vote for Ron Paul. I have it on good authority that others would vote for me too.

I actually wouldn't vote for you, any more than I would for myself. Too emotional, not principled enough.

I think you're fantastic, of course. But being a representative of anybody else requires a certain stubbornness you just don't have.

=========

I think we can all agree more people would want me as President than Paul

Nope, not you either. Not there often enough, refuse to answer questions, plus you're a virgin or something ...

=========

That's what we need. A pro-vice president.

I'd probably prefer The Cat-Tribes over Ron Paul. There's nothing special about TCT in terms of what he believes, but he seems to have a firm understanding of the law, and I think would be at least competent.

Yes. Seconding TCT.

=========

Ron Paul is not a fringe nutjob. He's a good candidate.

He's certainly an interesting candidate. If nominated, the contest with Obama or HRC would be even more interesting, he'd be coming at them from the left!

=========

Most NSG posters would make better presidents than Ron Paul. And yes, that's highly insulting to the man, considering... well... I really shouldn't say anymore.

Meh. I tend to think that most NSGers would go batshit crazy under the kind of scrutiny Paul gets.

Those of us who aren't batshit crazy already, of course. :)

=========

Oh, and I do not endorse LG. It wouldn't be fair on his family, and we should not choose leaders on the basis of liking them or how much fun it would be.

AnarchyeL for President.

What I mean is that the attitude of most right-libertarians towards left-lib communes is "yeah, sure, if you're rich and you own a large plot of land, you can start a left-lib community there, within the confines of our right-lib society."
Well, firstly, no one needs to be rich, since the people can pool their individual wealth together and get plenty enough to buy a farm somewhere. It's been done.

Secondly, once that is done, there is nothing wrong here. It's a question of whether to have a right-lib town in a left-lib world or vice versa, and I just think it's easier to make sure the two communities don't interfere with each other by taking advantage of the exclusivity of property in a right-lib world. That's not a value statement, just a matter of practicality.

And given that public opinion is overwhelmingly non-libertarian, the creation of a libertarian state would require the exclusion of large numbers of people from the political process.
Which wouldn't be libertarian, hence you don't have to concern yourself with that particular strawman.

Some libertarians openly advocate a kind of constitutional dictatorship (and they typically cannot explain how they expect such a state to remain constitutional for more than 5 minutes).
Not sure what you mean by constitutional dictatorship. I want the constitution to lay out very strict rules on what the state can and can't do, and how it is supposed to act within those rules, in order to keep it from growing, oppressing or generally getting involved in people's lives. I'm not keen on a legislature or an executive beyond the police, so those would have a lot less importance than they do today. The judiciary is my favourite part of government, and would remain largely unchanged.

No, sorry, it still sounds like some kind of mystical mumbo-jumbo.
My life is the sum of my actions and experiences, right? My property is the result of such actions and experiences, right? Therefore, to an extent my property forms the physical manifestation of the way I lived my life up to this point. I attach importance to these things, I know what they took to get, I devoted significant parts of my time on earth on making them my property.

My property is the manifestation of my success at achieving goals. I consider achieving goals the meaning of life, and just as you wouldn't expect me to be able to take away someone's family (which they might consider their success story), I don't expect people to take away my Ferrari.

The question is, would the law of a right-lib society punish someone for stealing something from the left-lib society next door?
It would, if we're talking a left-lib society within a right-lib world.

Lol, aren't we supposed to be talking about the next president?

Lol, go LG!:D

Vote for me!:p
It depends if there are any (Sane) Libertarians on here. Anyone?

Vote for me!:p

For what? "Pesident" ...?

Well, firstly, no one needs to be rich, since the people can pool their individual wealth together and get plenty enough to buy a farm somewhere. It's been done.
"A farm somewhere" is hardly a viable independent modern society. I was thinking more along the lines of a small country. The number of middle-class people who would have to pool their resources to start their own country is in the millions.

Secondly, once that is done, there is nothing wrong here. It's a question of whether to have a right-lib town in a left-lib world or vice versa, and I just think it's easier to make sure the two communities don't interfere with each other by taking advantage of the exclusivity of property in a right-lib world. That's not a value statement, just a matter of practicality.
Can you say E-X-T-E-R-N-A-L-I-T-Y?

Which wouldn't be libertarian, hence you don't have to concern yourself with that particular strawman.
Hey, I didn't come up with it off the top of my head - I've seen plenty of self-proclaimed libertarians argue that people are too stupid to govern themselves.

Granted, there are also plenty of self-proclaimed communists advocating some silly things, so I guess we're even.

Not sure what you mean by constitutional dictatorship. I want the constitution to lay out very strict rules on what the state can and can't do, and how it is supposed to act within those rules, in order to keep it from growing, oppressing or generally getting involved in people's lives. I'm not keen on a legislature or an executive beyond the police, so those would have a lot less importance than they do today. The judiciary is my favourite part of government, and would remain largely unchanged.
A constitutional dictatorship is a kind of government where the constitution limits the government's course of action to such an extent that democratic choice becomes impossible, because for every issue there is only one option allowed by the constitution. That seems to be pretty much the form of government you describe.

Such a form of government would lead to far greater apathy than we have today, since the people would be effectively unable to change anything about their government and would therefore have no reason to get involved in the political process. It would likely also eliminate competition between political parties and political debate in general within government. This, in turn, would lead to a one-party system... and eventually a police state.

My life is the sum of my actions and experiences, right? My property is the result of such actions and experiences, right?
Well, no, your property is the result of the actions and experiences of a large number of people, starting with those who extracted the natural resources necessary for the creation of the objects in question, going through those who fashioned the objected with their labour, and ending with you.

My property is the manifestation of my success at achieving goals. I consider achieving goals the meaning of life, and just as you wouldn't expect me to be able to take away someone's family (which they might consider their success story), I don't expect people to take away my Ferrari.
Someone's family is not property to be kept or taken away. And unlike property, they can leave of their own accord.

But that's beside the point. You're saying you have an emotional attachment to your property. That may count for something - notwithstanding the fact that it is a rather odd fetish - but it is still, in the end, just an emotional attachment, not the mystical bond you make it out to be.

I don't really know enough about most NSG posters (other than that they waste plenty of time here) to make an informed decision on it. And I can't really vote for myself on account of being ineligible for US President at the moment. But Ron Paul... I have a strong distaste for the notion that the free market is the solution to all of mankind's problems. It's a highly dangerous ideology.

No one on NSG would do a better job than Ron Paul. Everyone here would probably fold under the pressure. I might, too. Ron Paul would do a great job as president.

The thing is, he would probably only be able to get 25% or so of what he wants accomplished, which would be great for the country.

This poll actually reflects very well on Paul. Nearly 20% would choose him over every other NSer. This includes libertarians who don't think he's committed enough. (a somewhat bizzare attitude, since he's never voted for a tax hike or anything unconstitutional, or for Iraq; I suppose could could call the constitution too centrist?)

NS is a very big place. This poll suggests that he's probably better than every single NSer, since it's unlikely any one got over 20%. And this vote is only for NSers, not Paul supporters.

Also, the site is somewhat skewed against libertarians, what with the fact that having an 'impoding' economy doesn't harm your ability to provide welfare, and the ban on foreign trade. For such a high Paul turn out, on a site institutionally against them, is a very big deal.

haha, funny how he's doing so much worse in national polls (I'm praying for the New Hampshire primary to lift him rapidly...). Presuming NSers have similar real preferences to the US electorate, if the other candidates were up there, he'd get about 5% (and that may be only of republican voters). That he's getting so much more suggests that Mike Huckabee et al are viewed as much better prospective leaders than the sum of the NSers!

This poll actually reflects very well on Paul. Nearly 20% would choose him over every other NSer. This includes libertarians who don't think he's committed enough. (a somewhat bizzare attitude, since he's never voted for a tax hike or anything unconstitutional, or for Iraq; I suppose could could call the constitution too centrist?)

NS is a very big place. This poll suggests that he's probably better than every single NSer, since it's unlikely any one got over 20%. And this vote is only for NSers, not Paul supporters.

Also, the site is somewhat skewed against libertarians, what with the fact that having an 'impoding' economy doesn't harm your ability to provide welfare, and the ban on foreign trade. For such a high Paul turn out, on a site institutionally against them, is a very big deal.

haha, funny how he's doing so much worse in national polls (I'm praying for the New Hampshire primary to lift him rapidly...). Presuming NSers have similar real preferences to the US electorate, if the other candidates were up there, he'd get about 5% (and that may be only of republican voters). That he's getting so much more suggests that Mike Huckabee et al are viewed as much better prospective leaders than the sum of the NSers!There is a higher proportion of libertarians here than in the general U.S. population.
Furthermore, I'm unaware of any NSers with political experience, and the NSers who picked him in this poll might have done so based on his experience and not on his views.
Lastly, the NSers who stated Paul wasn't committed enough to libertarianism might have been referring to his social libertarian views - the lack thereof, I mean.

This poll actually reflects very well on Paul. Nearly 20% would choose him over every other NSer. This includes libertarians who don't think he's committed enough. (a somewhat bizzare attitude, since he's never voted for a tax hike or anything unconstitutional, or for Iraq; I suppose could could call the constitution too centrist?)

(a) Paul increases government spending as much as anyone else by adding pork to spending bills. The fact that he doesn't vote for them after he's done so is a farce.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RON_PAUL?SITE=ILMOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

(b) Paul point-blank stated that he was voting for an unconstitutional bill here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

This action was not only a breach of his oath of office, but makes it clear that his claims to never vote for anything not authorized in the Constitution is a lie.

Meanwhile, on social issues - issues of individual liberty - Ron Paul is decidedly authoritarian, giving authority over these issues to the state in pretty much every case. He has consistently fought against personal liberty in the areas of religious freedom, equal protection under the law, and privacy by constantly proposing what he calls the "We the People Act" - a bill designed to remove the legal recourse individuals currently have when states infringe upon these rights.

This poll actually reflects very well on Paul. Nearly 20% would choose him over every other NSer. This includes libertarians who don't think he's committed enough. (a somewhat bizzare attitude, since he's never voted for a tax hike or anything unconstitutional, or for Iraq; I suppose could could call the constitution too centrist?)It's only 108 votes (at the time of posting)...

NS is a very big place. This poll suggests that he's probably better than every single NSer, since it's unlikely any one got over 20%. And this vote is only for NSers, not Paul supporters. Yes. It has a lot more than just 108 people. That suggests that the poll is not representative. The poll does not suggest that he's better than every single NSer. I can assure you, if we got to choose between Ron Paul and some of the more entrenched NSers, it's more than likely they'll get more votes than Ron Paul. That said, being more popular than any single NSer isn't exactly all that spectacular.

Also, the site is somewhat skewed against libertarians, what with the fact that having an 'impoding' economy doesn't harm your ability to provide welfare, and the ban on foreign trade. For such a high Paul turn out, on a site institutionally against them, is a very big deal.The site being skewed against libertarians is irrelevant, insofar Max Barry is only one man, and the games mechanics are hardly relevant to a forum poll.

haha, funny how he's doing so much worse in national polls (I'm praying for the New Hampshire primary to lift him rapidly...). Presuming NSers have similar real preferences to the US electorate, if the other candidates were up there, he'd get about 5% (and that may be only of republican voters). That he's getting so much more suggests that Mike Huckabee et al are viewed as much better prospective leaders than the sum of the NSers!Consider that this poll will reflect only the opinions of those that actually vote in it, which will be people interested in the topic. Those ambivalent to Ron Paul or sick and tired of him are less likely to vote in it than those that love or loathe him.

Well, NSG has a much higher proportion of libertarians than the general US population (see this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=541746)), so Ron Paul's score is actually quite dismal. Especially when you consider that he's running against people with no political careers or experience whatsoever.

No one on NSG would do a better job than Ron Paul. Everyone here would probably fold under the pressure. I might, too. Ron Paul would do a great job as president.

The thing is, he would probably only be able to get 25% or so of what he wants accomplished, which would be great for the country.

t, i don't get you. like, at all.