TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying C-Delta Conductor's 10 most recent comments.

• ‘Real News’: Reviewing Ron Paul’s Legacy and the Future of Libertarianism in the GOP

  November 16, 2012 at 1:07pm

  In reply to TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12.

  Sapient

  I believe that there are two criteria that must be met:

  1) Aggression must be real (a missed shot), implied (a threat of force in exchange for corrosion), or dire (a gun is pulled on you and a shot has not yet been fired).
  2) Force must be less than or equal to the aggressor’s force (above).

  Now there is an important distinction that one must make before quickly applying this logic to the State. That is that the State is not a human. The State does not have a life to protect, a State does not have property to defend, a State does not have liberty of itself (indeed a State can only inhibit liberty in some form or another). On the other hand, a man has a right to life, which logically entails the right to protect it, a man has a right to property (as there exists scarcity) and thus has a right to defend it, similarly a man is endowed by God with liberty, and thus has the right to hold himself from slavery. There is one other difference between a man and a State, a State has a monopoly on force that it is granted the right to use. It’s actions cannot be brought before a court of law, and it cannot be removed from society if it misjudges the time to shoot compared with the time to run. Thus it is logical to hold the burden of the state to a higher standard as it is not human, it does not have a life or property or liberty to lose, it only has the power to take those things from individuals. A state must be well defended and strike only if attacked.

• ‘Real News’: Reviewing Ron Paul’s Legacy and the Future of Libertarianism in the GOP

  November 16, 2012 at 8:45am

  In reply to TROLLMONGER.

  Sapient

  I agree completely that our founder’s positions are not the same as the position of post-Austrian liberalism (libertarianism); however, the fact that Ron Paul has run as a Republican is hardly fraudulent, what does it mean to be a “Republican”? the strict meaning of the word is someone who denies pure democracy in favor of a representative democracy with strong levels of control over the power of those representatives. If this were the definition that Ron Paul is not living up to then I must disagree as I have seen few greater proponents of hard-control over direct democracy than Ron Paul.

  Moreover, I agree that the principles of liberty are dangerous if misunderstood. However, I can sum up my beliefs about the roll of government and man in a civil society in a set of logically consistent axioms. Where do modern Republican’s draw their hopelessly inconsistent set of ruling principles from. To take the fire-hydrant example, why would the man be asked to move his car in the first place? Simple, for the greater good, Utilitarian calculus demands that his parking spot be subverted for the common good of the individuals whose houses may burn down. But, once you accept that line of thinking, where do you draw the line at what liberties you cannot take away. Can I kill one American to save two, can I rob 349,999,999 to feed 350,000,001? Where do you draw your limits on government if not from the self-evident rights of man and corollary responsibilities?

• ‘Real News’: Reviewing Ron Paul’s Legacy and the Future of Libertarianism in the GOP

  November 16, 2012 at 1:44am

  In reply to TROLLMONGER.

  Sapient,

  While I am sure that your quotation of Ron Paul is quite veracious, you have taken it out of context, or rather left out context, thus creating a straw man argument. Ron Paul and most libertarians believe that there are instances where the use of force is moral for both individuals and government. This is though the principle of self defense. Just as I would be committing murder if I burst into my neighbor’s home and shot him in cold blood, when the government launches an unprovoked strike against a sovereign nation (especially without a Congressional declaration of war) they have committed what is philosophically equivalent to cold blooded sovereign-murder. If Ron Paul believed that Force should never be used, then why does his budget proposal call for an increase in defense spending near equal to that of Mitt Romney’s? If Ron Paul believed that force was never acceptable for individuals then why would he promote gun rights and personal defense?

  Moreover, you misinterpret the Libertarian meaning of the term force, force can be more than just guns. It can be using the ethos of power to rob Peter to pay Paul. It can be claiming that states cannot peaceably secede, or saying that you cannot smoke pot in your own home. Each has a threat associated, and thus we call each force. In this case government force can only be used if one individual’s rights are violated by another, or a contract is broken.

• ‘Real News’: Reviewing Ron Paul’s Legacy and the Future of Libertarianism in the GOP

  November 16, 2012 at 1:26am

  In reply to TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12.

  Sapient

  I’m not sure what is wrong with the principles of Voluntaryism: all associations between groups of people should be voluntary, that sounds like the principle of “consent of the the governed” to me. What would be your alternative to this theory of government structure? that people should be forced to enter into social contracts, how? at the barrel of a gun?

  If you think that our founder’s distrust of pure democracy is tantamount to saying that force can be used to make people join a society, then you are sadly mistaken. The tenth amendment and our right to freely immigrate between states are both based on our founder’s belief in the principles of what you call “Voluntaryism”. Moreover, our Constitution allows for states to secede from the union, and for patriated states to abolish the Constitution in favor of another, these are all based on the belief that moral government can only exist with the voluntary consent of the governed.

  I would also add that Liberty under Libertarianism IS limited, where one man’s right abuts the rights of another, one of the alleged rights is not right, thus one man is committing a crime. So you cannot exercise your liberty at the expense of someone’s life (thou shalt not murder), you cannot use your liberty at the expense of someone’s property (thou shalt not steal). But I can worship a different God than you, or eat different foods than you. But all liberty is limited by itself: ergo responsibility.

• ‘Real News’: Reviewing Ron Paul’s Legacy and the Future of Libertarianism in the GOP

  November 16, 2012 at 12:54am

  In reply to Ragnars Repos.

  P.S. Ragnar’s Repos, I love the Atlas Shrugged allusion!

• ‘Real News’: Reviewing Ron Paul’s Legacy and the Future of Libertarianism in the GOP

  November 16, 2012 at 12:52am

  In reply to Ragnars Repos.

  pudssweetie, some questions:

  1) “people who are in need… who do need assistance and should get help when in need, but… it should only be temporary” So what you are saying is that the government should engage in collectivism but only under certain time constraints. Should people in need get help for one second, one day, 99 days, 10 years, how about cradle to grave? Your position is different than the socialist’s in degree not in kind. Moreover, if a robber comes to my home and says that he will only rob me to feed his family for five days, he is committing the same crime as if he were robbing me to feed his family for five years.

  2) “We believe in defending this Country, our Flag and protecting our Rights and Freedom’s.” If the United States flag flew over Soviet Russia, would you still defend it? The flag is a vacuous symbol of what ever you put under it, I prefer to defend morals, such as life, liberty and property, not a fabric symbol of a government as transient as the wind.

  3) “We do not believe in Socialism or communism as… it has destroyed and oppressed people in other Country’s” So you advocate for policy that is just tainted by communism (the safety net and restricted welfare) because everyone knows that a little bit of evil done for the right reasons is really good? No thanks, I would rather stand against all evil in all quantities and have a *moral* government, rather than an efficient one that is kind to the needy.

• ‘Real News’: Reviewing Ron Paul’s Legacy and the Future of Libertarianism in the GOP

  November 16, 2012 at 12:07am

  In reply to DannyDutch.

  While I agree with your sentiment, I believe that expanding government control over marriage contracts is not a solution. Once homosexuals gain the right to marry there will be a succession of other minority groups who want their slice of the government marriage cake.

  Our founders understood that the government should not be in the business of telling people what their rights are (our rights are too numerous to conceive, much less name) this is exemplified by the groups that want to get married. So the question is, why is the government in the marriage business in the first place? If government had no roll in marriage, marriage would just be a free contract between two individuals, if fundamentalist Christians want a “covenant marriage”. god bless: write up a contract, if progressive’s want an open marriage. evolution bless: write up a contract. If gays want to marry: write up a contract.

  The government exists to enforce contracts and settle disputes, yet now it is creating contracts and potentiating disputes (53% of govt marriages end in divorce). Government marriage is amoral and the improper roll of the State, and it has failed at its aim. Liberate marriage and give it back to people, pastors and God where it belongs!

• ‘Real News’: Reviewing Ron Paul’s Legacy and the Future of Libertarianism in the GOP

  November 15, 2012 at 11:55pm

  In reply to soybomb315_II.

  I couldn’t agree more. The problem with Ms. Cupp’s thinking is that she is only thinking in a utilitarian (hedonistic) fashion: e.g. “all voters care about is if your policies are good for them”. Freedom, liberty, libertarianism is not based on this type of thinking. It is based on moral truths: like man was created free, it is morally wrong to use force against your fellow man, it is morally wrong to rob your fellow man.

  With all of the “Religious Right” conservatives in the GOP, why is it that Ron Paul and libertarians are the only people talking about MORALS in government? The answer is that Religious-right-conservatives have no moral conviction, many of them are statists just like democrats, and have no respect for the rights and beliefs of their fellow man. They need a strong federal government to force their beliefs on their fellow man, rather than advocating for an open market where Christian ideas and ideals can compete for the hearts and minds of individuals, they wish to carve out a governmental niche where their ideas can exist to the exclusion of others. This is no different then democrat atheists wishing to force prayer out of schools, or force your kids to listen to their evolutionist theology.

  We have a two party system, but we have a one philosophy system: statism… conservatives need to wake up and understand that their breed of statism is just as evil as socialist statism. Ron Paul and libertarians under stand this, and we’re waiting for you t

• Judge Could Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion

  November 1, 2012 at 12:41am

  It does not matter what the ruling on this case is. The travesty of justice and the insult offered our Constitution and God-given rights is that any ruling confirms that the courts, rather, the government has a right to make a decision (yea or nay) about the life of this child and this family’s medical decisions. This is as disgusting as when some East Coast judge thought that his ruling on what constitutes science (evolution or ID) should determine what free people consider to be science. Who appointed these robed tyrants and gave them the power to arbitrate what is Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Metaphysically existent or non-existent, who should Live or Die? The LAW cannot and should not make ETHICAL decisions for people, no matter what. It exists to remove unlawful citizens who have stolen other citizens’ unalienable rights from society, not to take away our rights itself.

• Condoleezza Rice Wows in Speech: You Cannot Lead From Behind

  August 29, 2012 at 11:35pm

  Condoleeza Rice gave the most LIBERAL speech of the night, one so liberal that the press will spend the next 24 hour news cycle praising it rather than concentrating on Paul Ryan’s amazing CONSERVATIVE speech.

  Why do we [Republicans] work so hard to shoot ourselves in the foot. The “Compassionate Conservatives” can sit in the back the Tea Party is driving.