Ron Paul

[DeistPaladin]

Rand Paul claims to be a libertarian like his father but seems more like a conservative to me.

[theVOID]

He doesn't really seem close to Libertarian, either that or he's wanting power and influence and towing the party line is going to get him there quicker than Ron's long journey to part power

[lilyannerose]

If oxygen is arsenic in disguise we're in big trouble too...

luckily neither are true. For instance:

Ron Paul : For NYC Mosque
Rand Paul : Against NYC Mosque

And?

---

I've noted a few folks posting that they are Libertarian. What exactly does that mean? Are you all Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead Libertarians? Or what?

[theVOID]

And it shows a massive difference in the prioritisation and nature of values and freedoms.

Ron Paul: We cannot restrict the freedom of umbrella-group x because of an action of splinter-group y.

Rand Paul: We can restrict the freedom of umbrella-group x because of an action of splinter-group y.

That being said it is more likely that Rand does not hold this position and he is an islamophobe with a double standard. Either way, in this case Ron is consistent with the libertarian ideology, Rand is not.

I'm not a Libertarian anymore, when my theory of value changed I found that much of my old beliefs were now morally bad or at best ignorant and now i agree with them about as much as I disagree, so I will leave it up to those who hold the position.

[Tiberius]

I've noted a few folks posting that they are Libertarian. What exactly does that mean? Are you all Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead Libertarians? Or what?

What it means for me is minimal government, with a focus on protecting the life, liberty, and prosperity of all their citizens. The main thing for me is the upholding of people's rights to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else (so legalizing all drugs, removal of marriage from any form of government sanctions, etc). I also believe in a strong free market, where the government has minimal to no direct involvement, and where the corporations are held to account by lobby groups and their own consumers.

[Jaysyn]

I've noted a few folks posting that they are Libertarian. What exactly does that mean? Are you all Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead Libertarians? Or what?

I value a strong *defensive* military , a reduction in government size & function, a well-regulated free market (as history is proof that there are some things the "market" does very poorly), as well as being very liberal socially.

[lilyannerose]

I've noted a few folks posting that they are Libertarian. What exactly does that mean? Are you all Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead Libertarians? Or what?

What it means for me is minimal government, with a focus on protecting the life, liberty, and prosperity of all their citizens. The main thing for me is the upholding of people's rights to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else (so legalizing all drugs, removal of marriage from any form of government sanctions, etc). I also believe in a strong free market, where the government has minimal to no direct involvement, and where the corporations are held to account by lobby groups and their own consumers.

You seem to have more faith in the honor of business and corporate entities than I have ever been able to muster! Unless business/corporations are absolutely subject to law for doing harm to individuals and environment, just to ID two sectors, IMHO business cannot be trusted to comply with either lobby groups or consumers, greed conquers all. Is your idea based on strong competition? At this time we have so many near monopolies that there is very little price competition. How would you suggest that monopolies be broke up and a competitive environment replaced the current business models? In order for lobby groups and consumers to be an effective "policing" force you would have to have a system in place that wrong doing would affect the bottom line, how would you achieve this?

At this point in our history it would be very difficult to unwrap business from the spine of government.

[Tiberius]

You seem to have more faith in the honor of business and corporate entities than I have ever been able to muster!

Not at all. A lot of businesses will be dishonorable and downright evil. What my form of free market capitalism does is place the power back in the hands of the consumer, where it rightfully belongs. It is in the best interests of the company to keep their consumers happy, since they are responsible for 100% of their revenue. The problem with any regulating authority is that they are human, and all humans have a price at some point. If you want to avoid corruption, take the corruptible out of the picture.

Unless business/corporations are absolutely subject to law for doing harm to individuals and environment, just to ID two sectors, IMHO business cannot be trusted to comply with either lobby groups or consumers, greed conquers all.

The greed of corporations ultimately rests on supply and demand. If there is no demand, it doesn't matter how great the greed is, the company will fail. Businesses have been getting around laws for years, and they will continue to do so. Of course businesses can be trusted to comply with consumers; if they don't, the business collapses. If you had a coffee shop, and all your consumers suddenly demanded you lower the price of your coffee, what would you do? Refuse and hope that more consumers come along (and risk your business collapsing whilst you wait), or take the loss in the hope that your lower prices will keep your customers happy and invite more people to your business?

Is your idea based on strong competition? At this time we have so many near monopolies that there is very little price competition. How would you suggest that monopolies be broke up and a competitive environment replaced the current business models?

Strong competition can be good, sure, but the fact is that not all monopolies are evil. Monopolies, like all businesses, are still reliant on their consumers. I wouldn't suggest that monopolies be broken up by any governmental means, since it goes against what the "free market" is supposed to be about. If a monopoly exists, it is being funded by numerous consumers who are happy enough to exchange their money for whatever it produces. If people want to take down a monopoly, it is simple: stop giving it money.

In order for lobby groups and consumers to be an effective "policing" force you would have to have a system in place that wrong doing would affect the bottom line, how would you achieve this?

The system in place is supply and demand. Cut the demand, and the company starts losing money; at which point any good CEO would wake up and take the hint. All bad CEOs would watch as their company fades into oblivion.

At this point in our history it would be very difficult to unwrap business from the spine of government.

Libertarianism goes hand in hand with revolutions, IMO. It would be difficult, and a lot of work, but it is the standard we should be aiming for.

[Light of Truth]

I've noted a few folks posting that they are Libertarian. What exactly does that mean? Are you all Ayn Rand and The Fountainhead Libertarians? Or what?

What it means for me is minimal government, with a focus on protecting the life, liberty, and prosperity of all their citizens. The main thing for me is the upholding of people's rights to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else (so legalizing all drugs, removal of marriage from any form of government sanctions, etc). I also believe in a strong free market, where the government has minimal to no direct involvement, and where the corporations are held to account by lobby groups and their own consumers.

Spot on, mate! Your defense in the post above mine is articulate and bloody brilliant. I would give kudos, but I don't know how. Lol.

[Tiberius]

Click the thumbs up under my post: