Buy Brownie Points
Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Politics Who is this guy?

gayfine upstanding member of society94

Avatar: Baby Typing
2

[2ch]

Level 33 Permanoob

“Shit-for-Brains”

Log in to see images!

No, seriously. Who is he?

Wylin

Avatar: 19712 Thu Mar 26 21:15:20 -0400 2009
35

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Troll

Causing Jealousy On The Internet On A Daily Basis.

gayfine upstanding member of society94 Posted:

Log in to see images!

No, seriously. Who is he?

Ron Paul, some politician..

gayfine upstanding member of society94

Avatar: Baby Typing
2

[2ch]

Level 33 Permanoob

“Shit-for-Brains”

Wylin Posted:

Ron Paul, some politician..

and why he deserves 2 smilies? Did he put “we’ll ban anonymous from the interets” in his election campain?

gaynigger94 edited this message on 02/18/2009 8:42AM

Inertia

Avatar: 60995 Fri Apr 03 12:59:05 -0400 2009
34

[Shii is gay]

Level 35 Troll

also wow i have no male reproductive organ

gayfine upstanding member of society94 Posted:

and why he deserves 2 smilies? he put “we’ll ban anonymous from the interets” in his election campain?

Did he?

I also never understood why he’s so popular on the Intraweb

actually I just don’t understand American politics in general.

He was running for the Libertarian presidential candidacy, but they went for the more moderate Bob Barr. Libertarians believe in a very small government with no welfare whatsoever. They are the extreme right wing. Ron Paul was a joke because he’s kind of crazy and probably has one smiley because he has honorary troll status – Libertarianism causes disgust in anyone that cares about other human beings whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

1337xxxxxxxxxlolololololololololxxxxxxxxx1337 edited this message on 02/18/2009 10:29AM

gayfine upstanding member of society94

Avatar: Baby Typing
2

[2ch]

Level 33 Permanoob

“Shit-for-Brains”

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Pau

Discussion on that wiki page has a lots of drama.

The Raven

Avatar: 93088 Thu Jan 01 19:28:12 -0500 2009
4

Level 14 Emo Kid

“Crybaby”

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

He was running for the Libertarian presidential candidacy, but they went for the more moderate Bob Barr. Libertarians believe in a very small government with no welfare whatsoever. They are the extreme right wing. Ron Paul was a joke because he’s kind of crazy and probably has one smiley because he has honorary troll status – Libertarianism causes disgust in anyone that cares about other human beings whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Pau

Log in to see images!

Libertarians are interesting, actually. Totally wacko, but interesting. They like to take bits of both party ideologies where they are convenient. They’re sorta so far right they begin to drift into the far left. Their social policies are extremely liberal. They want church out of government and have no problem with gay rights.

By the way, this forum is also named after the goddess-mother (and notoriously awful romance novel/political diatribe writer) Ayn Rands, who is viewed as the founder of the non-philosophy that is Objectivism.

Well yeah, they’re extremely liberal except for the lack of welfare programs. The political graph circles back in on itself…

Consider the typical Libertarian as the type that caches guns and supplies in their basement fallout shelter for the coming civil war/apocalypse/whatever. They basically believe in individual rights > all. They believe that everyone should have to take care of themselves regardless of how they started out in life. It kind of ignores the existence of prejudices and relies on individual good will to donate to the poor instead of the government providing anything. The politicians might sound reasonable on some counts, most importantly things like religion and sexuality that the gov. should stay out of, but the citizens themselves are usually like I just described.

Good point about Rand.

Fortunato

Avatar: 72902 2010-02-03 18:45:17 -0500
32

[Grey Goose Mafiosi]

Level 51 Troll

ZOMBIE CANNONBALL OF GORE

It’s important to distinguish Libertarians from Anarchists.

The primary difference is mbumive hypocrisy toward government. Anarchists believe in no government whatsoever. Libertarians believe in government with no taxes. Libertarians believe that the government has no role except to maintain a military to enforce only the business status quo. Atlas shrugged spoiler: This is doubly odd because Rand’s bizarre, parody socialist government that takes over at the end of Atlas Shrugged destroys itself with a military developed superweapon.

Libertarians are radically pro-business and believe in no regulation for business whatever. They would have been in love with the Bush administration’s policy towards Wall Street.

Anyone who wants a good laugh and a hearty WTF can read an extremely accurate and fair summary of Atlas Shrugged here: http://www.spudworks.com/article/66/2/

it is the dystopian future. I’m a leather-clad, katana-wielding dominatrix with bootstraps as thick as youre wrist. the only way to save humanity is to establish trade routes through zombie-infested wastes. They took away our free market and the mbumes became complacent, like dogs laping at the government trough. Now i must horde wealth for myself and contorl all the supply lines so that this travesty may never happen again…

OP just play Bioshock

John Stossel

Avatar: 134911 Thu Feb 12 13:53:03 -0500 2009
9

[Fenjamellur]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

He was running for the Libertarian presidential candidacy, but they went for the more moderate Bob Barr. Libertarians believe in a very small government with no welfare whatsoever. They are the extreme right wing. Ron Paul was a joke because he’s kind of crazy and probably has one smiley because he has honorary troll status – Libertarianism causes disgust in anyone that cares about other human beings whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Pau

Not exactly Libertarians generally do not view charities badly. They are just opposed to forcing other people to help others.

So it should give disgust to anyone who thinks he can force his obligations of survival unto other people.

And that would be weakling fabulous persons. (according to Rand)

So long live the victorious people’s war of world libertarian revolution for the emancipation of the exploited majority!

Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

ps. Funny how you can apply Marxist terminology to Libertarianism.

John Stossel edited this message on 02/18/2009 2:59PM

John Stossel

Avatar: 134911 Thu Feb 12 13:53:03 -0500 2009
9

[Fenjamellur]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Besides I’m Mormon we pack guns and food in our fallout shelter anyways.

John Stossel Posted:

Not exactly Libertarians generally do not view charities badly. They are just opposed to forcing other people to help others.

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

ignores the existence of prejudices and relies on individual good will to donate to the poor instead of the government providing anything

John Stossel Posted:

ps. Funny how you can apply Marxist terminology to Libertarianism.

Log in to see images!

John Stossel

Avatar: 134911 Thu Feb 12 13:53:03 -0500 2009
9

[Fenjamellur]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

I certainly do not ignore it. Prejudice is a value loaded sentiment and according to Rothbard and me; Violence can only be justified on a value free bases.

And as soon as you include value laded sentiments into a political system it cannot be justified by means of logic. Because it cannot be demonstrated to be true when the value does not exist. Par Example if your political system requires you to give nickels to hobos it can only exists when there are hobos. When they don’t exist there can be no justification for including them, thus such a political system cannot be demonstrated to be true on Mars. Because there are no hobos on Mars. Now a political system to be true it must by applicable everywhere in all times and regardless of situations.

Now to give a more general justification of my stance:

Now if people hate hobos, not all of them because someone has to advocate a bill for forcing people to give them nickels. Then they are taking their value judgment and saying it is so superior to the value judgment that you should not help hobos that they can use violence to enforce their own value judgments. Now this can be turned around. The people that hate hobos now forbid the others by punishment to give nickels to hobos. Now you have the exact same thing, people enforcing their values upon others. Same happened to the Jews, in both the 3rd reich and the USSR. Your stance originates from what I can tell from a grave epistemological error. That you can judge the justness of an action from it’s results and it is easy to justify murder with that. And you can never judge the results from an action except in models where the results are pre-determined. Now however you can predict the direct results from your own actions, granted that you have the time to evaluate them. Thus libertarians advocate that you cannot initiate force but only respond to it. as in defending yourself. That leaves you with a political system where you cannot attack people for any reason. While the other stance leaves you with infinite (infinity does not exist, it is just as high as you can count but the point is very very very many, beyond your comprehension) political systems because you can change the value judgment to anything.

Now if you think you are better then other people fine. But if you think you are so good that you can force other people to bow to your will then you have completely destroyed the concept of equality from your political system. Because people cannot have equal rights if other people have the right to tell you what to do. Except if all people have that right and then you have no rights at all. Thus due to the inalienable god given rights (interchangeable with natural rights if you a heathen); which have been demonstrated to be true so many times that I shall take them for granted in this argument. Thus the only system that gives everyone equal rights is to allow everything except the initiation of force upon another being. Because if you allow all people the “right” to enforce their will with violence then there is no such thing as rights.

My position is that the only consistent way of granting everyone equal rights is giving them the right to do anything so long as they do not initiate

force on other people. Now that does not mean they cannot have value judgments as you point out in your example; we all do. But do dismiss them as prejudice is perhaps right, but it isn’t a justification for forced charity. You are free to convincing them that your value judgment is right. Which then leads to a sort of market of pluralistic value judgments that compete. That is you can found a commune with a set of communistic rules and live there in peace. But you cannot horde people into your commune at gunpoint. But you are free to ask them and try convincing them to come. If you think you can horde them into your commune you are saying that your values are better. But apparently not good enough so you can convince other people of their goodness. Then you are stating that their logic is different from yours; that is superior. That is polylogicalism and is profoundly irrational and was practiced by the nazis and communist explicitly with their bourgeoisie truths, Jewish truth and Aryan truth. Then There can be no dialogue between groups and the only solution is to enforce your value. And in the case of the nazis with death camps.

The reason why that is wrong is because it is an improper definition of reason. Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or

conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The

method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. (Rand) because there is only one world which all groups perceive there is only one non-contradictory identification. Thus your political system has too by applicable to that reality and not a socially constructed (Hobos used earlier) phenomena. Which is the definition of a value judgment ANY value judgment.

In short:

Conservetism: Log in to see images!

Socialism: Log in to see images!

Communism: Log in to see images!

Libertarianism: Log in to see images!

There is a profound difference between Libertarianism and other political systems. While the others are not different in principle but only in scale.

Ps.

Libertarianism is a general term, in my usage it would be more accurate to identify it as Anarcho Capitalism where the government has the exact same rights as the populace, and because they are not allow to steal neither can the government do so with “taxation”. A more detailed definition of my stance would be the self coined Post-Anarcho-capitalistic-Institutional-Constructivism. Which is that government institutions are privatized (except for the Libertarian role of government) by handing them over to political parties which grant access to them for a taxational fee. While the right too libertarian role of government services are gained through signing a literal social contract which gives you the right to the services and obligates you to pay citizenship fees. Now if you don’t think you need it you don’t have to get citizenship and can lock yourself up in your house with your guns. But the police are then not obligated to help you against bandits.

John Stossel edited this message on 02/18/2009 3:53PM

Inertia

Avatar: 60995 Fri Apr 03 12:59:05 -0400 2009
34

[Shii is gay]

Level 35 Troll

also wow i have no male reproductive organ

There’s a lot of tldr in this thread, but mostly talking about Libertarianism or whatever. But why is Ron Paul particularly famous?

An amiable p-
ersonage

Avatar: 97971 Thu Dec 18 12:48:23 -0500 2008

Level 35 Troll

“Problem Child IV”

John Stossel

Avatar: 134911 Thu Feb 12 13:53:03 -0500 2009
9

[Fenjamellur]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Inertia Posted:

There’s a lot of tldr in this thread, but mostly talking about Libertarianism or whatever. But why is Ron Paul particularly famous?

Because he was more successful then other Libertarian candidates. Finished second in Nevada and had decent support in many states.

And had a real grbumroots frenzy.

And if you thought that this was too long to read then you would not have the chance to read the bill for the economic stimulus package which was

available int 10 copies to the senate and house combined, and released 24 hours before the vote and came in at the meager length of 1,000 pages. Which

means that no one that did not have prior access to it could have physically read it in detail and judged it. And then Log in to see images! condemns nay votes.

John Stossel edited this message on 02/19/2009 5:46AM

lol seriously??? It was already answered who he was in here a bunch of times. Seems like you need a Galt injection.

Balloon

Avatar: Balloon's Avatar
28

[Grey Goose Mafiosi]

Level 35 Camwhore

Inflate my ovaries until they pop out of me and float away

I agreed with some od his ideas… like doing away with the Patriot Act. Thanks, I want my phone sex calls to be private.

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!