Then you can't see very far at all, I'm afraid.

Not at all. Pre-civil war: Weak central government, factionalism, bloodshed. Post-civil war: Strong central government, unified, prosperous, peaceful country (internally, at least). I could make all sorts of cases for Europe, NATO, Roman Empire, etc., but it's a derail and I haven't bothered to put too much thought into it yet. Maybe I'll start a new thread once I get the argument more coherent.

Is it just me, or does Ron Paul avoid labeling his D oppenents and opponent policies as "liberal"? Honest question because I don't watch all the videos posted ITT. At the very least he seems to do it less than a lot of his peers. Refreshing.

1. You should look up the absurd number of troops we have in countries besides Iraq and Afghanistan. We have troops in over 150 countries. We have more troops in Germany than we do in Iraq. Why do we need 40,000 troops in Japan? Why do we need 30,000 troops in South Korea?

2. You should look up how little the department of education actually does at a federal level. The state and local governments can handle everything on their own.

3. How is taking money from someone and giving it to someone else not theft? Robin Hood was not a hero.

Because sometimes things need to be done that benefit everyone (defense, sea-wall, roads, cops, clean air and water, etc). Yet there will always be some who try to get out of paying. The system just works a million times better if you force those people to stop acting like petulant brats and admit they're living in a society.

Does that justify every tax ever? No of course not. But until you guys get off the taxation=theft pedestal and at least acknowledge that you understand the basic concept of cooperation and compromise that all civilization is based on - no one is ever going to take you seriously.

Does even RP think taxation = theft. Does he have some plan to completely eliminate all taxation?

Contrary to some claims in this thread I am yet to make up a quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTB2fIqkiM

He has stated pretty clearly he believes federal tax should be $0. He has also said he does not think we should reduce taxation past our ability to reduce spending.

Re: taxation as theft and so on. You people realize that the richest pay less per income than the poor in this country. Who do you think most of the stimulus has gone, the poor??? How much of this taxation has gone to people who have been severely hurt by our massive state-run manipulations of markets?

I have a feeling we could argue about this forever and neither one of us would change our minds so i'll take an alternate route.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve would be a HUGE step for the middle class and poor in this country, probably even more so than any kind of realistic tax the rich and give to the poor deal. The way our system is set up creates constant inflation (and it's only going to get even worse imo). And inflation is a large burden on the poor and middle class. I don't want to explain how it works and derail/bore this thread too much, but this is one of the better explanations out there: http://silverbearcafe.com/private/04...nomics101.html . EDIT: I don't think that link even mentions Fractional Reserve Banking. Look into that too, it's one of our biggest problems.

Plus the system is the reason for a ton of our nation's debt, which is the reason for a big chunk of our taxes.

RP doesn't have a plan to eliminate all taxation, but he does want to eliminate the income tax.

There is a big difference cutting military spendings, reduce amount of people involved or closing some bases especially in areas where you have strong, stable allies and retreating from every post around the world even in the most unstable areas and digging in around US border as RP advocates.

Department of education or not I can't get over the notion of "teaching what clients want". That will let to massive indoctrination with baloney ideology (and no, poor families and poor children can't just "go to school in different town/state).

Pretty much this and people have no concept of what issues are important. Here we have a candidate who's going to end the empire, fight against the war on drugs, stop the insane deficit spending and stop destructive fed QE and people are tripping over his religious views. They simply must not care about any of these things, because no other candidate will make progress on these fronts. Often times I feel like those who attack RP and libertarians on this forum don't even have their own cogent ideology and are more than anything else anti-libertarian because for whatever reason their cozy, false realities are threatened by it. Supporting any other candidate just makes no sense whatsoever unless you like the wars and the drug war and don't care about the debt or our currency.

Ya I agree.

One other thing I wanna mention is the age of RP. For someone who is 76 years old, when he was growing up it was a completely different time. It is understandable that he has some shaky viewpoints. If you were born in the 30s you would likely have the same viewpoints. But these views really are small potatoes compared to the things that are way more important. Tripping on these unimportant details when every other candidate is completely bought by big corps. and will continue the terrible status quo is asinine. Everyone needs to get behind RP because he is the only candidate who even has a remote chance to put a halt to the empire.

Making excuses for Ron's dumb positions because he is old is really stupid. Denying evolution is ******ed, period.

Well, first you should find someone who deifies the central state, and then you can have this conversation with them.

I don't support the status quo. The status quo is terrible, and I have no idea why you think that I am arguing for it, other than that you have no idea what the parameters of the conversation actually are.

Finally, I'm not sure how I'm shifting the burden of proof. I'm arguing that it's a good thing to restrict the power of the state over the individual. Other people are arguing that if it's more local, it's by definition less tyrannical, despite the obvious incoherence of this position. There's really nothing more to say about that that hasn't already been said.

The first argument (regarding the Fed) is hard to see. The fractional reserve banking piece was already covered. It's not going anywhere, ever.

This isn't an argument in favor of Paul. If we're going to give him a pass on various things for being an old man, then maybe him being president isn't such a good idea, you know?

with all due respect, i'm not sure you understood what Paul said or what evolution means. I say this just because most of the people criticizing Paul fall into this camp.

What exactly did he say that you take issue with?

"it's just a theory and i don't support it."

can you be clear specifically on what he meant by "it". Don't just say evolution, because this can imply a million things. The most likely thing Paul would mean by the use is the notion that everything evolved, uncreated. Given his religious belief this is obvious and there is nothing "scientific" that "proves" otherwise.

Can you show that he explicitly denied something like sexual selection or mutation?

Really dude? It's ok. Nobody's perfect.

I've heard essentially everything he's said about evolution. I didnt see one thing that contradicts any scientific achievement. I'll need you to explain otherwise, not google.

It's already in this thread. There's no way Paul's statements are defensible, sorry.

eh Zygote makes a half decent point.

"My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe."

strictly speaking this is about as "unscientific" as you get unless you're discussing the apodictic aspects of evolution, which I doubt you are.

you committed a much graver sin here than Paul.

SINNER!

OK? And Paul's still made a bunch if idiotic statements on the subject, what's your point?

Feel free to look at the earlier discussion if you actually disagree with the substance of my posts on the matter.

at best you misinterpreted Paul's statements to mean something he clearly did not intend. I dont know what "facts" you think he's denied.

i see you're tired of debating this but i'd appreciate you being clear on where he erred because its not obvious to me in your past posts.

5 seconds of googling bro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw