Fascist Rand Paul Supports Omnipotent Government, Corporatism, More Taxes

Miscellaneous Current Events
21

But you’re always clamoring for more democracy. How do you feel about the way the people have spoken this time?

“Speaking” would be if the residents of Kentucky could propse, vote on and veto legislation directly (like the people of Switzerland do, for example).

I don’t think voting for one of two canditates in a primary election for one of two bureaucratic parties, then votingbetweeen the candidates of those two parties, qualifies in any way as “speaking.”

Speech : political process of Kentucky :: a complete sentence in English : two bits of binary code

I think if the people of Kentucky had any say at all in actual decisions their state made, as opposed to merely the personalities who write the laws, I think we’d see far more libertarian policies in law than any Rand is proposing.

22

You should have a problem with it because it is a blunder strategically.

Yeah, I agree… civilian trials are the best option. Well, the best option is not using the miliitary to arrest foreigners in other countries, but military tribunals trying the accused as accused war criminals under Nuremburg, Int’l Law and the military code would still be way better than the nonsense they have going now at Guantanamo.

23

Benjamin, do you support democracy? If so, why?

24

So, you’re copping out of representative democracy because you don’t think its democratic enough. Fine.

But what if everyone voted on laws in America like in switzerland? Americans would vote down gay marriage, substance user’s rights, etc. They would just love it if transgender people would crawl down a hole and die.

You don’t think the masses will just vote themselves everyone else’s income? What incentive can there be for any individual to work or accomplish anything if getting ahead just means you’ll be looted and plundered?

25

But what if everyone voted on laws in America like in switzerland?

Well, I think in an American context, ideally we’d be voting on these things mostly at a state level…On gay marriage, for example, this polling suggests that support for gay marriage is in the majority in Northeastern and Western states, while in a minority in the MIdwest and South. So freedom might require some geographic flexibility, but on the other hand, states which chose to discriminate would be the losers as capable citizens chose to live elsewhere. (Personally, I favor ‘civil unions,’ for gays and straights, as far as the law in concerned, but that’s another issue…)

The same thing would probably happen with drugs; some states would vote to be like Amersterdam and some would vote to have a drug war; but the states which voted to be repressive would have to pay a lot of money for prisonrs and deal with more black-market related crime (as they do now), while the states which were more permissive would have more tax revenue, tourism, and fewer black-market related problems. The only places the drug war seems to be being repealed is in places with direct referendums; I live in a state where cannabis was recently decriminalized via referendum, and I bet it’s going to be outright legalized in California this November.

So let’s say people in a state voted for a 100% redistributionist system, so that there was no “incentive… for any individual to work or accomplish anything.” Well, then there would be no income to distribute, right?

Even from a strictly redistributionist point of view, redistributionist taxes couldn’t be raised beyond a certain point at which work becomes pointless and tax revenue collapses. My guess is that there probably would be some states which would vote to be very redistributionist, and some states which would try to have almost no taxation. I’d imagine states would have very different economic policies, which would make them a real-world laboratory for testing economic theories. The ones which worked best would presumably create the most jobs and attract the most newcomers over time. I think plenty of states have conservative electorates which would vote for minimal taxes, and there’d probably be less waste and more efficiency in the states which favored high taxes… I can’t imainge special favors and kickbacks passing often via referendum, or when referendum can veto them.

I don’t think every vote would turn out ‘right’ every time, but I do think it would be a self-correcting system over time.

26

Why not on a local level. Why not on a neighborhood level. Why not on an individual level? I agree that smaller states would be better than a few large state, but fundamental problems persist.

Surely you agree that its unjust for 51% of the people in an area to be able to make decisions for 100% of the people. If I don’t like it, I can just leave, but that doesn’t make it okay. If you were being robbed, you’re entitled to compensation. No one tells you to put up with it or move.

Ahh but then you’d never be able to have a tax rate higher than maybe like 10%. One state could just make the tax rate really really law to attract all the commerce there. The rest of the states will have to do the same or else become populist slums. You make this point later, although you leave open the possibility that collectivism can work. You don’t strike me as the type to debate economic theory but this door is open.

As enlightened and open minded as I’m sure your state is, they will probably always favor attacking of some innocent people. They will not lift the ban on all substances. They will continue to tax cigarettes out the @$$. Transgender people will continue to be denied counciling/hormonal therapy. At the end of the day, there are things that the majority of any group won’t tolerate.

So, you think that democracy will work because freedom of association will check people’s behavoir, but you DON’T think the market will work, even though it is ALSO a system of free association?

And a key difference between democracy and the free market is that on the market, you are actually liable for your own actions. We’ve been over this, and you’ve ignored it, but if you harm someone else you have to make amends. A democracy does not have to. Democracies do not have to pay repairations to innocent people they attack. A democracy also vote to confiscate a large amount of wealth from its rich residents. Sure, they might move away, but now they’ve lost all their stuff and have no recourse.

At the end of the day, democracy, like all forms of government, suffers the dysfunction of having one group be judge in its own case. Its a dumb idea and no one has ever agreed to it.

27

Those are pipe dreams Benjamin. We could call democratic republics a noble experiment, but it is an experiment which has failed. See On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution.

Well, I think in an American context, ideally we’d be voting on these things mostly at a state level…On gay marriage, for example, this polling suggests that support for gay marriage is in the majority in Northeastern and Western states, while in a minority in the MIdwest and South. So freedom might require some geographic flexibility, but on the other hand, states which chose to discriminate would be the losers as capable citizens chose to live elsewhere. (Personally, I favor ‘civil unions,’ for gays and straights, as far as the law in concerned, but that’s another issue…)

There’s absolutely no justification for forbidding gay people to marry. Why should the voluntary actions of two individuals, which harms nobody else, be limited just because they live in the wrong geographic area?

What if people voted that this quadrant of people can only eat pork and beans, then the next steak and eggs, etc.? Statists cling to this irrational belief that the optimum way of organizing society is holding popularity contests to put people in power. Do you poll someone every few years to “represent” you at the grocery store?

28

It’s pretty obvious to me he’s just playing politics by saying he’s pro-CRA1964. It seems to me that he realized, unfortunately, that people are currently too brainwashed into thinking people wouldn’t voluntarily abandon their racist position. Not to mention that his father took a beating in the 80s thanks to his newsletters that got spun, so it seems like a smart move to make if he wants to be elected.

Not to mention that a large amount of his backing is from the “Tea party” folks, who also happen to looove Sarah Palin. He probably has to swindle through to continue getting their support.

Yes, he’s being weasely, but I think he’s probably closer to his father’s positions(If not quite to the same degree) than he can let on right now.

29

We could call democratic republics a noble experiment, but it is an experiment which has failed.

Still going strong in Switerland… Where exactly is democracy failing on account of their being too much of it?

“There’s absolutely no justification for forbidding gay people to marry.”

No one is actually forbidding gay people to marry anywhere in the U.S., as far as I know. Gay people can get a religious leader or whatever to pronounce them married anywhere they like. They can call each other spouses, tell everyone else they are spouses, etc. That’s marriage.

The only question is whether the state or their employer recognizes the marriage. Personally, I don’t think the state should recognize any marriages; the state should recognize civil unions for tax and civil purposes, for everyone equally. This issue is so loaded because the state is intruding into a religious realm, and taking sides about who is “married,” which for most people is a religious issue (who is married in the eyes of God[s[). So both sides want the state on the side of their theological position, which is really silly in my opinion.

“holding popularity contests to put people in power.”

Well, as I said in several places, I’m not in favor of “representative” democracy; I think that’s what’s failed, if anything.

Imagine for a second that all we had to do to repeal the Federal Reserve Act was to convince 100,000 people to sign a petition asking for a vote on the Act, and then it would be put on the National ballot in November. No vetting hundreds of candidates in hundreds of local races, holding their feet to the fire, hoping they don’t get bought out with campaign contributions or political favors; just 100,000 signatures and an up or down vote. If you don’t win this year, you can try again next cycle.

How long do YOU think the Federal Reserve Act would have lasted if we had had national referendums along those lines ever since 1914?

Do you poll someone every few years to “represent” you at the grocery store?

The unionized employees who work there do, and they have a higher quality of life and work to show for it.

30

Lol, well I wish he’d decide to be a Republican full time then because he seems to think he’s a libertarian sometimes too.

“Imagine for a second that all we had to do to repeal the Federal Reserve Act was to convince 100,000 people to sign a petition asking for a vote on the Act, and then it would be put on the National ballot in November.”

This is closer to what’s called “pure democracy” I think.

31

Still going strong in Switerland… Where exactly is democracy failing on account of their being too much of it?

…for less time than the US has existed. I’m not saying that setting up some form of democracy leads to instant social disorder. It does, however, run counter to civilization. Read this.

For every “Switzerland” there is an Iran or a Zimbabwe.

Personally, I don’t think the state should recognize any marriages; the state should recognize civil unions for tax and civil purposes, for everyone equally.

The political system you endorse contradicts your other supposed beliefs. Taxation just complicates things because that is unjustifiable too.

Imagine for a second that all we had to do to repeal the Federal Reserve Act was to convince 100,000 people to sign a petition asking for a vote on the Act, and then it would be put on the National ballot in November.

Imagine a genuinely free society. The Federal Reserve would have never even came about. Imagine if all it took was 51% to vote to raise taxes on the richest 1% and buy everyone a Mercedes. Certainly we would all be better off if we had this power right?

The unionized employees who work there do, and they have a higher quality of life and work to show for it.

This has nothing to do with what I said (and unions reduce overall wages). Unionized grocery store employees don’t hold elections to appoint someone to choose what groceries they buy. What you cannot do is prove a distinction between goods and services like justice and security, which supposedly must be handled by a ruling class, and mundane things like groceries and hair salons.

32

if Rand Paul is a facist…what are his opponents? even worse than a facist?

33

Can we add “allegiance to a foreign government” to the list of Rand Paul’s attributes?

Summary; Rand Paul supports:

  • foreign aid for Israel; elimination of foreign aid for countries Israel doesn’t like

  • free trade with Israel; trade sanctions on anyone Israel doesn’t like (specifically Iran)

  • an unconditional right of self-defense for Israel; no stated belief in a right to self defense for Palestinians, Lebanese, or anyone Israel doesn’t like.

link:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25526.htm

By Dr. Rand Paul
Candidate, United States Senate

Israel and the United States have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.

The free trade agreement that has existed, and been subsequently strengthened, between our countries since 1985 is a tremendous mutual benefit. As a United States Senator, I would work against the growing protectionist sentiment in our country and defend free trade with Israel.

I would never vote to place trade restrictions on Israel, and I would filibuster any attempts to place sanctions on Israel or tariffs on any Israeli goods.

The issue of Palestine is incredibly difficult and complex. The entire world wishes for peace in the region, but any arrangement or treaty must come from Israel, when she is ready and when her conditions have been met.

I strongly object to the arrogant approach of Obama administration, itself a continuation of the failures of past U.S. administrations, as they push Israel to make security concessions behind thinly veiled threats.

Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations. Friends do not coerce friends to trade land for peace, or to give up the vital security interests of their people.

As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.

Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.

It is not the place of outsiders to meddle or pass judgment or to use our power or relationship to force Israel to go against her own interest for the sake of “peace.”
Peace is a laudable goal. But it is just that – a goal. It is not an end at any cost.

It makes no sense to me that the United States provides Arab countries hostile to Israel with $12 billion in annual financial and military aid. Many of the weapons that Israel would face in a Middle Eastern conflict would have come directly from our government. I find this appalling. In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel.

Finally, Iran has become increasingly bellicose towards Israel. Thankfully, Israel has one of the bravest, most elite military forces in the world. I would never vote to prevent Israel from taking any military action her leaders felt necessary to end any Iranian threat.
Just as the United States would not follow the will of another country in the face of our national security, we shall not limit the options of Israel in this area.

Finally, I believe the United States should increase the pressure on Iran. I would mandate that all publicly managed investment funds divest from Iran immediately.

We should not be subsidizing any company that does business with Iran, and we should not allow U.S. companies or those with funds from U.S. taxpayers to enrich Iran through its national energy program. I would fight to end all subsides to American corporations that do business with Iran, including so-called renewable energy companies that work through Brazil to provide support to Iran and empower its dictators dangerous nuclear saber rattling.

Copyright 2010, The American Spectator

34

You’re a hypocrite for complaining about these things, when the same is true for the vast majority of Congress, and for supporting the type of system that puts those people in power.

35

" - foreign aid for Israel; elimination of foreign aid for countries Israel doesn’t like

  • free trade with Israel; trade sanctions on anyone Israel doesn’t like (specifically Iran)

  • an unconditional right of self-defense for Israel; no stated belief in a right to self defense for Palestinians, Lebanese, or anyone Israel doesn’t like."

My man.

36

Makez me lol

37

## Rand Paul: Deny citizenship to kids of illegal immigrants

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0528/rand-paul-deny-citizenship-kids-illegal-immigrants/

As Rand Paul aligns himself with anti-immigrant forces, father Ron Paul comes out in favor of DADT repeal

Republican Senate candidate and Tea Party hero Rand Paul says he opposes granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

In an interview with Russia Today, flagged by Jillian Rayfield at TalkingPointsMemo, Paul appeared to join the anti-immigrant sentiment running through his party in recent years, telling the news network that the practice of granting citizenship to all persons born on US soil – as mandated by the 14th Amendment – “should stop.”

“We’re the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen,” Paul said.

On that point, it would appear Paul is misinformed. Dozens of countries around the world adhere to the principle of Jus soli, “right of soil,” meaning citizenship based on a person’s place of birth. Among the countries where persons are automatically granted citizenship by virtue of being born there are Australia, Canada, France and the UK.

But switching the US from being a “right of soil” country to a “right of blood” country would be complicated. For one thing, as constitutional experts told TPM’s Ben Frumin last month, it would require a constitutional amendment that overrides the 14th Amendment.

Thus, a law proposed by Republican lawmakers last year that would end the right to citizenship by birth would be unconstitutional, constitutional lawyers say. Despite this, some 90 members of Congress have co-signed the bill, which is known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009.

News that Paul has sided with anti-immigration hardliners in the GOP further stretches the credibility of those who claim that the GOP candidate for a Senate seat from Kentucky is a libertarian like his father, Rep. Ron Paul, Republican of Texas. Though immigration is a controversial issue among US libertarians, libertarianism has traditionally opposed any regulation of immigration and supported an open-borders policy.

In a recent interview, Paul disappointed many supporters of his father when he said, “I’m not a libertarian.”

…

First he comes out against the Civil Rights Act, now he comes out against the 14th Amendment! Maybe he really is a racist?

Amendment XIV (1868)

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

38

Like civil rights, this issue is a dead end. The 14th ammendment is not going anywhere, people are just wasting their time, make themselves look stupid.

39

^Paul didn’t bring this up. He got asked about it in some minor interview, and rather debate him on real issues Maddow just accused him of being racist. This is not his platform. Its the democrats who are stuck in the stone ages.

40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzoGgUOGB-w&feature=email

^

They are accusing Rand Paul of being racist for blah blah blah. I don’t feel like explaining, but check out.