Presidential Election: 2012

[dautolover]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Ok, let's go back to your old post:

A government that enslaves and murders its people is not a legitimate government, and has no sovereignty

If I told you that the US Constitution, at least in its 1787 form, allowed for the systematic enslavement of blacks, then don't you think the government promoted the enslavement of its people? If we use your view of legitimacy, that means that the US Government was never a legitimate country until 1865, with the adoption of the 13th amendment.

The thing I'm noticing is that you seem to be mixing up human rights with civil rights, which are two completely different things. At least in the US, there is no structure that acknowledges the importance of human rights (elimination of poverty, supplying food and shelter, etc.). All of the rights you have are civil--speech, press, religion, due process, equal protection, right to attorney, right to speedy trial, freedom from self-incrimination, etc. etc. The government can by all means provide shelter and food to you, but it is not constitutionally required to. It is required to give you freedom of speech, religion, due process, etc.

Violation of human rights does not make the US illegitimate. I can name a number of human rights violations that the US has committed and is committing right now, just for its basic economic interests. Yet, no one will negate the legitimacy of the US. I am, however, concerned that the US continues to commit them.

The US has no legitimate power to go to Iraq in the name of human rights. And even if it did, it would still need to abide through the process of declaration of war. That's why process is SOO important... to avoid these violations from happening in the first place.

Your point is valid only in terms that it posits a new form of state legitimacy. I kind of share your concerns, particularly in terms of human rights. Maybe it would make a difference in the world to have every state respect some combination of human plus civil rights. That is commendable. However,this is not the current state of affairs in the US. Maybe in the future...

Consent is never present. Legitimacy exists when the government adheres to objective standards.

What objective standards?

Who sets up these standards? Hopefully "the people" do. If so, we go back to the notion of consent.

This is an extremely flimsy argument. There is no such thing as consent of the governed to begin with (ask anyone in prison). Whether the North gave the south permission to leave is irrelevant based on the constitution (and principle). The best argument you have here is one based on who gets public lands/funds/military etc.

That's funny, cause I'm actually defending your view that the South had no constitutional right to secede from the US.

Democratic slavery is an oxymoron because democracy is built on the right to vote (a right denied to slaves). It's especially bad in the US flavor which also recognizes a right to equal protection.

There's more things to democracy than just a vote, and those things were altogether denied to slaves. I agree... the US was the laughing stock of Europe for exalting these rights while having institutionalized slavery.

 

[Normy]

Obama is going to win.

N!

 

[Keef]

If anybody but Paul gets the nomination, I agree with you. If Paul gets the nomination I'm confident he will be able to make a powerful, truthful case against Obama, and the stark contrast between the two will be readily apparently.

 

[Biggles]

Biggles - Mathematics is logical and objective.

That’s exactly what I was saying:

Yes, there is nothing wrong with disagreement. What IS wrong is to think there is anything so precisely logical about libertarian philosophy that it rises to the level of “mathematics” & therefore cannot be argued about or disagreed with. That is delusional.

ie. Libertarian philosophy does not rise to the level of logic of mathematics.

Ever get a red "X" on a math problem?

No need to make it personal - I did get my Math "O" level.

Danoff: I can't count the number of times I have posted that disagreement means nothing when it comes to objectivity. People disagree on everything - including whether the world is flat. That has no bearing on whether there is an objective answer to whether the world is flat.

People do disagree on everything - including what constitutes objectivity!

There was a time when people believed objectively that the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. We now have definitive proof to the contrary. I am sure there are many beliefs that we have today that will prove to be false in the future. Just what is it that you are so sure is 100%, incontrovertibly objective?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Obama is going to win.

N!

Cool story bro.

 

[Famine]

That’s exactly what I was saying:

ie. Libertarian philosophy does not rise to the level of logic of mathematics.

No need to make it personal - I did get my Math "O" level.

Nevertheless, the point is clear - even mathematics, which is clear, defined logic, can result in disagreements. You think you've used logic to solve a math problem, but you got it wrong. It's not logic or math that's at fault, but your application of them.

The act of disagreement and the state of being wrong through misapplication of logic doesn't invalidate the logic.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

you seem to be mixing up human rights with civil rights, which are two completely different things.

Again trying to link this to the thread, having trouble with it.

Rights are for me, something you can defend where ever you are. They do not change, they are irrelevant for the election, unless any candidate would be abusing rights (which they probably all are).

Civil rights has very little to do with rights, they are agreements in a society, the society can change these at will. This is what the elections should be about.

It seems Obama introduced some agreements in society that are contested, but what are the agreements the others will bring in? It is very difficult to estimate that from a campaign. It is also not only linked to a party, but to a person that will be able to realise the agreement by voting.

 

[Keef]

You really need to stop coming up with your own lingo for these things, Vince. Human rights include life, liberty, and property, and these three human rights are universal. Civil rights are legislated in a nation and vary by nation; the United States Constitution's first ten amendments, referred to as the Bill of Rights, are examples of civil rights. And rights, whether human or civil, are guaranteed protection by the government.

If you're going to change around terminology, keep it to yourself. These terms have definitions and that's why they are used.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

You really need to stop coming up with your own lingo for these things, Vince. Human rights include life, liberty, and property, and these three human rights are universal. Civil rights are legislated in a nation and vary by nation; the United States Constitution's first ten amendments, referred to as the Bill of Rights, are examples of civil rights. And rights, whether human or civil, are guaranteed protection by the government.

If you're going to change around terminology, keep it to yourself. These terms have definitions and that's why they are used.

Subjective: that is why I state the definition. I have no obligation to follow the US definitions, anyway definitions are beside the point.
e.g.: Property has nothing to do with rights, it is all about agreements.

The essential is to have a critical view, try to understand the others, try to clarify. Mixing up things that have no connection under the same term does not help, not even if it was done with the best of intentions hundred of years ago. It actually impedes people to understand what they are talking about.

Same with the thread: Why is nobody talking about Sarkozy, Hollande, Le Pen, Bayrou, Joly, ...?
But there I believe the title could be improved by adding US, because there are other presidential elections this year.

 

[Biggles]

Nevertheless, the point is clear - even mathematics, which is clear, defined logic, can result in disagreements. You think you've used logic to solve a math problem, but you got it wrong. It's not logic or math that's at fault, but your application of them.

The act of disagreement and the state of being wrong through misapplication of logic doesn't invalidate the logic.

Hmm ... I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Perhaps you're misunderstanding my meaning?

 

[Famine]

Hmm ... I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Perhaps you're misunderstanding my meaning?

What IS wrong is to think there is anything so precisely logical about libertarian philosophy that it rises to the level of “mathematics” & therefore cannot be argued about or disagreed with. That is delusional.

Mathematics can be argued about and disagreed with. The act of arguing about something or disagreeing with it does not render it subjective - merely the arguer/disagreer's application of it.

Libertarian philosophy has many branches, some of which don't necessarily always agree (there are examples in this thread of Danoff, Keef and Foolkiller, all Libertarians, disagreeing with one another on various aspects of it). That these disagreements exist isn't proof that the philosophy itself is flawed and illogical - any more than thinking you got the math problem right when you got it wrong proves that math is flawed and illogical - merely that we sometimes are.

 

[Danoff]

If I told you that the US Constitution, at least in its 1787 form, allowed for the systematic enslavement of blacks, then don't you think the government promoted the enslavement of its people? If we use your view of legitimacy, that means that the US Government was never a legitimate country until 1865, with the adoption of the 13th amendment.

Absolutely.

I believe I already stated that a government that permits the enslavement of its people is illegitimate. For as long as the US practice slavery, rampant rights violations greatly harmed any claim to legitimacy that the US government had. If another nation had gone to war with the US (prior to the civil war) in an attempt to free the Africans we had enslaved, they would have been 100% justified in doing so. This should be extremely evident from the fact that I claim that the south was illegitimate for doing something that the entire union had been participating in earlier.

The thing I'm noticing is that you seem to be mixing up human rights with civil rights, which are two completely different things. At least in the US, there is no structure that acknowledges the importance of human rights (elimination of poverty, supplying food and shelter, etc.).

...none of those are human rights.

All of the rights you have are civil--speech, press, religion, due process, equal protection,

These are human rights.

right to attorney, right to speedy trial,

These are civil rights.

Violation of human rights does not make the US illegitimate.

The function of government is to protect human rights. Violating human rights by definition makes government illegitimate. What else establishes or ruins legitimacy (don't say consent)?

The US has no legitimate power to go to Iraq in the name of human rights.

It absolutely did. Anyone can prevent a mass-murderer from committing genocide.... anyone.

And even if it did, it would still need to abide through the process of declaration of war.

That's procedural. Yes you're right, and this is important, but it is of secondary importance.

Your point is valid only in terms that it posits a new form of state legitimacy.

Yea, you're not going to find anything that I'm saying in a text book somewhere. I arrive at this position through logic rather than convention.

What objective standards?

Human rights.

Who sets up these standards? Hopefully "the people" do. If so, we go back to the notion of consent.

The people do not establish human rights (see my signature) - logic and reason establish human rights.

There's more things to democracy than just a vote, and those things were altogether denied to slaves.

Technically no. Democracy in its purist from is rule of he mob where every state action is voted on by the people. Naturally the US isn't a democracy, but a constitutionally limited representative republic.

The constitution set out clearly a set of rights that the US government violated. We violated our own rules (even worse, an objective set of rules), and we went to war with ourselves to rectify that so that we could adhere to the principles of the constitution in full rather than offering lip service when it suited us. I know you agree that it was the right thing to do from the point of view of principle, and the US was justified in initiating a war (whether it did or not) with its splinter nation who was attempting to maintain a state that practiced rampant violation of rights.

 

[Biggles]

Famine: Mathematics can be argued about and disagreed with. The act of arguing about something or disagreeing with it does not render it subjective - merely the arguer/disagreer's application of it.

Libertarian philosophy has many branches, some of which don't necessarily always agree (there are examples in this thread of Danoff, Keef and Foolkiller, all Libertarians, disagreeing with one another on various aspects of it). That these disagreements exist isn't proof that the philosophy itself is flawed and illogical - any more than thinking you got the math problem right when you got it wrong proves that math is flawed and illogical - merely that we sometimes are.

I've never actually made the argument that libertarian philosophy is illogical, only that its conclusions do not begin to approach the logic of mathematics (the claim advanced by Danoff &/or Keef). As far as I am aware 2 + 2 always equals 4, which multiplied by 7 always equals 28, which divided by 4 always equals 7. As far as I am aware (bearing in mind I only have "O" level math) there are no "branches" that lead to different results or conclusions - there is a single "correct" answer. Your analogy seems entirely inappropriate.

Danoff: I believe I already stated that a government that permits the enslavement of its people is illegitimate. For as long as the US practice slavery, rampant rights violations greatly harmed any claim to legitimacy that the US government had. If another nation had gone to war with the US (prior to the civil war) in an attempt to free the Africans we had enslaved, they would have been 100% justified in doing so. This should be extremely evident from the fact that I claim that the south was illegitimate for doing something that the entire union had been participating in earlier.

So does that mean that any government that practices any kind of human rights violation is illegitimate? If not, what is the threshold? Who decides?

 

[Danoff]

I've never actually made the argument that libertarian philosophy is illogical, only that its conclusions do not begin to approach the logic of mathematics (the claim advanced by Danoff &/or Keef). As far as I am aware 2 + 2 always equals 4, which multiplied by 7 always equals 28, which divided by 4 always equals 7. As far as I am aware (bearing in mind I only have "O" level math) there are no "branches" that lead to different results or conclusions - there is a single "correct" answer. Your analogy seems entirely inappropriate.

Occasionally someone will get 28 divided by 4 wrong and put 6. That is what happens when libertarians (or anyone) disagree on something objective.

So does that mean that any government that practices any kind of human rights violation is illegitimate? If not, what is the threshold? Who decides?

Why do you care? Do we really need a bright line here? Does answering this really help you evaluate my claim that confederate states were an illegitimate government because they had enslaved their people? Why are you asking this question? Why are you not just saying "you're right, a government that supports slavery has no claim to legitimacy"? Is this purely an academic interest?

The function of government is to protect human rights. A government that accidentally violates human rights is still legitimate as long as it isn't a result of gross negligence in policy. A government that violates human rights even in a small way (like banning a particular substance) does open itself to claims of illegitimacy... but the entity (whether it's a revolution or another government) that's throwing the stones needs to have a greater claim to legitimacy (either with a plan to fix the problem or a track record) if they intend to overthrow said government and rule in its place.

Saddam Hussein, for example, would have had no claim to invade and rule Kuwait based on Kuwaiti human rights violations given that he was currently or recently engaged in slaughtering his own people.

But anyone and any organization is justified in fighting the government as it attempts to violate human rights. Taken perhaps to its most extreme, I would support a heroin user defending his right to use and possess heroin against an oppressive US government (although I would prefer he did so in as peaceful a way as possible). The heroin user is in the right. Likewise Saddam would be in the right to defend Kuwaiti women's rights to walk in public free of a head and face covering (if that were required by law in Kuwait... which it is currently not).

Somehow I sense many angry posts following this one.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Occasionally someone will get 28 divided by 4 wrong and put 6. That is what happens when libertarians (or anyone) disagree on something objective.



Why do you care? Do we really need a bright line here? Does answering this really help you evaluate my claim that confederate states were an illegitimate government because they had enslaved their people? Why are you asking this question? Why are you not just saying "you're right, a government that supports slavery has no claim to legitimacy"? Is this purely an academic interest?

The function of government is to protect human rights. A government that accidentally violates human rights is still legitimate as long as it isn't a result of gross negligence in policy. A government that violates human rights even in a small way (like banning a particular substance) does open itself to claims of illegitimacy... but the entity (whether it's a revolution or another government) that's throwing the stones needs to have a greater claim to legitimacy (either with a plan to fix the problem or a track record) if they intend to overthrow said government and rule in its place.

Saddam Hussein, for example, would have had no claim to invade and rule Kuwait based on Kuwaiti human rights violations given that he was currently or recently engaged in slaughtering his own people.

But anyone and any organization is justified in fighting the government as it attempts to violate human rights. Taken perhaps to its most extreme, I would support a heroin user defending his right to use and possess heroin against an oppressive US government (although I would prefer he did so in as peaceful a way as possible). The heroin user is in the right. Likewise Saddam would be in the right to defend Kuwaiti women's rights to walk in public free of a head and face covering (if that were required by law in Kuwait... which it is currently not).

Somehow I sense many angry posts following this one.

If there is going to be intervention imposed by one country on another for human rights violations, it seems to me that the 'enforcer' should have their own country in order first, or there should be some clear line in the sand. Otherwise it seems like a moot point and just an act of aggression to me.

I'm not arguing this for anything to do with the civil war by the way. I just disagree with the entire idea of fighting other peoples wars. I guarantee no country comes here to save us once the finish stripping our rights away, and they shouldn't. It's our fight and we have to decide how bad we want to change our society, just like any other must do.

 

[FoolKiller]

Getting back to the presidential election.


I was listening to last night's/today's (That would be live Thursday night Feb. 9/or downloadable Friday Feb 10) Adam Carolla podcast with Dr. Drew (Drew Pinsky, Adam's former co-host from Loveline, for those who aren't up to speed on quasi-celebrities) on as guest. During the news bit they discussed the new regulation in LA banning frisbees, balls and digging deeper than 18 inches (unless you have a special permit - you know to bury Daddy in the sand) from the beaches (apparently you can only lay in the sun legally now) and Adam went on one of his trademark rants. He pointed out to the people who just accepted it when they banned fires, drinking, smoking and dogs that if you keep shrugging it off and saying OK that eventually they take away anything enjoyable and fun and don't stop until they take everything you have away.

At this point Dr. Drew mentions Alexis de Tocqueville and his book Democracy in America, and how he predicted two issues America would face was tyranny of the majority and paternalism.

Adam then says they should get thousands of people together and all go down and have a bonfire party with their dogs and live music while they smoke and drink and play games and dare them to come arrest everyone for having fun on a beach that they all help pay for.

Then Dr. Drew says, "Are you going to vote for Ron Paul this time around?"

And Adm says, "I'd like to. I just want the 🤬 government to get the 🤬 out of the way. Just get out of the way."

That is when Dr. Drew says, "That's Ron Paul. That's Ron Paul. That's my basic--leave me the F alone."


As you can see from my small quoting, I can't link the episode, but anyone that is interested can check it out on whatever store you get your podcasts from or at adamcarolla.com. The news story starts at an hour and 13 minutes (1:13:00) in, but the Ron Paul mention happens about six minutes of Adam ranting later. The whole thing goes on for over ten minutes, and ends with Adam's advice whenever the rich guys are attacked, "I never got a job from a poor man." (MAJOR LANGUAGE WARNING - PODCASTS ARE UNREGULATED AND ADAM CAROLLA TAKES FULL ADVANTAGE OF THAT)

So, Dr. Drew endorsing Ron Paul.

 

[Tesla]

Rick Santorum declares war on Heavy Metal.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Rick Santorum declares war on Heavy Metal.

Its debunked as satire on the author's blog. I wish it were true and I could see him being dumb enough to let GWAR play his inauguration, but it didn't happen.

http://religiousragings.tumblr.com/
Pasted from page
"Note on my Rick Santorum Declares War on Heavy Metal Music post. It’s SATIRE, folks. "

 

[Tesla]

Aw man, I'd love to see the outlash from heavy metal fans.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Dethklok's ravenous fans would tear him apart.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Dethklok's ravenous fans would tear him apart.

Oh the carnage and the lulz

 

[DK]

Santorum probably thinks Rammstein inspires neo-Nazism.

 

[Keef]

So, Dr. Drew endorsing Ron Paul.

This is actually kind of a big deal for kids my age who grew up listening to Adam and Dr. Drew late at night. We loved that show!


So, a Maine GOP representative sat down and spoke with the Secretary of the Caucus of a certain town, and the delegate chair. They chit-chatted, and the GOP rep brought up the issue of "Ron Paul supporters". He said the GOP was concerned they would hijack the caucuses and delegate count. He said he'd been to other precincts and Ron Paul supporters had dominated in many areas. He said the GOP was increasing security because Ron Paul supporters are "very vocal." As it turns out, the delegate chair for this town and the GOP rep had recognized each other from an engagement shortly before this conversation. The GOP rep recognized the chair's car...the one with the Ron Paul sticker. Awkward moments of silence ensued, before the delegate chair politely explained that Paul supporters are respectful and engaged in the process, which is exactly what the GOP wants of their constituents. Then he had to leave to see his wife, and wished the GOP rep a good day.

 

[ChaosStar79]

It looks like Faux has cut my favorite Ron Paul endorser for asking too many questions. I am going to miss the Judge. It's no surprise to see him get the axe, telling the truth and daring to question the establishment on Faux is something he did like no other I have ever seen on their network. Also, it's fun to watch Rummy squirm and refer to the 'official reports' instead of giving direct answers.

 

[Danoff]

I was listening to last night's/today's (That would be live Thursday night Feb. 9/or downloadable Friday Feb 10) Adam Carolla podcast with Dr. Drew (Drew Pinsky, Adam's former co-host from Loveline, for those who aren't up to speed on quasi-celebrities) on as guest.

I'm a major Carolla podcast listener. I'm behind though, so I haven't gotten to that episode yet. Good stuff! 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

It looks like Faux has cut my favorite Ron Paul endorser for asking too many questions. I am going to miss the Judge. It's no surprise to see him get the axe, telling the truth and daring to question the establishment on Faux is something he did like no other I have ever seen on their network. Also, it's fun to watch Rummy squirm and refer to the 'official reports' instead of giving direct answers.

Unfortunately, Fox Business has never been available on anything less than the Pay Too Much for Every Station package here in Frankfort, so I never got to see it. At my old job though I would pull up Stossel and Freedom Watch on my breaks.

I think the fact that FBN is changing nearly the entire prime time line up says it is less about The Judge than it is a business decision. The Judge still has all his other Fox News gigs. And to be honest, he is more enjoyable to watch when he is going head-to-head with Hannity and O'Reilly. He gives him a chance to contrast establishment Republican ideology against Constitutionalism. I know people who have been more affected by seeing the two sides together than just hearing The Judge talk.

This is actually kind of a big deal for kids my age who grew up listening to Adam and Dr. Drew late at night. We loved that show!

You should check out the podcast. They don't get through the news without at least one 20 minute rich, white guy rant from Adam. And I think he manages to anger at least one special interest group every few months and one pretentious celebrity (the latest is Kevin Smith) a year.

I'm a major Carolla podcast listener. I'm behind though, so I haven't gotten to that episode yet. Good stuff! 👍

It's good pod. I was wondering where all the other listeners were. It is officially the most downloaded podcast in the world, but I hadn't run into anyone that listens. I got the app, which you can setup to automatically preload the episodes when you are on wifi and then whenever I have time I can listen. He has replaced my morning radio. I also listen to Larry Miller's podcast and Alison Rosen has her own podcast starting Monday that I am looking forward to.



On Topic: I'm curious what people's take on the Obama birth control mandate thing is. Clearly, he underestimated the blowback it would have, and he has attempted a compromise, but it doesn't seem to be helping a whole lot. My boss, a self-professed left winger, even thinks it is just a cheap ploy because many Catholic Charities are self-insured. He thinks it should be required, but politically he thinks Obama is playing a dangerous game.

Personally, I think that it will be a forgotten issue by November. Having married into a Catholic Democrat family I know they hate nothing more than getting a politics lecture from the pulpit.

And on the mandate thing; well, everyone knows where I stand on any kind of health care mandate, but that said, if you want to be a non-profit, religious organization and will take money from the government to aid your efforts you should be expected to also take some regulations you wouldn't if you were fully independent. I don't like the system, but if I want to play in the system I would expect to have to play along with how the system works.

But all that aside, so much for keeping your health care plan if you like it, right?

 

[livemusic]

So, a Maine GOP representative sat down and spoke with the Secretary of the Caucus of a certain town, and the delegate chair. They chit-chatted, and the GOP rep brought up the issue of "Ron Paul supporters". He said the GOP was concerned they would hijack the caucuses and delegate count. He said he'd been to other precincts and Ron Paul supporters had dominated in many areas. He said the GOP was increasing security because Ron Paul supporters are "very vocal." As it turns out, the delegate chair for this town and the GOP rep had recognized each other from an engagement shortly before this conversation. The GOP rep recognized the chair's car...the one with the Ron Paul sticker. Awkward moments of silence ensued, before the delegate chair politely explained that Paul supporters are respectful and engaged in the process, which is exactly what the GOP wants of their constituents. Then he had to leave to see his wife, and wished the GOP rep a good day.

Looks like they're taking over all right:

 

[Keef]

I like how she suggests that the RP campaign is doing something wrong. Supporters from every candidate are allowed to stay if they want, but its not our fault the other supporters are ill-informed and unmotivated. That's their problem for being lazy. They probably all have crappy jobs too because they couldn't be bothered to achieve anything more for themselves in life.

Did I say that out loud?

 

[Famine]

We're being told that the Maine results are:

Romney - 39%
Paul - 36%
Santorum - 18%
Gingrich - 6%

Though the news outlets are doing their damnedest not to mention Paul. They tell us that Romney won and Gingrich was fourth, then they might mention "Ron Paul got 36%"...

 

[Liquid]

We're being told that the Maine results are:

Romney - 39%
Paul - 36%
Santorum - 18%
Gingrich - 6%

Though the news outlets are doing their damnedest not to mention Paul. They tell us that Romney won and Gingrich was fourth, then they might mention "Ron Paul got 36%"...

And I wouldn't be surprised if those were somewhat fabricated.

Can someone confirm what's happened with the disputed votes in Florida and Nevada? I heard that Paul won one of them, but I'm not certain.