Rights and corporations (George Mason Q&A)

[SpellboundSolution]

$100,000,000 a year is not lobbying, it's protection money.

[tempss]

What are the benefits of corporate welfare?

[egervari]

Ron Paul doesn't attack the wall street people though - he attacks the fed, and government supported enterprises. I have hardly heard Ron attack capitalists... he has defended capitalist. He just doesn't like cronyism... which I think Ayn Rand would also disagree with too.

Honestly and genuinely, I don't see a contradiction with Ron Paul's positions. He's been really consistent on these points too :/

[scepticsteve]

That's why he embraced the 99% narrative. I see. Is Ron Paul a Reaganite today or was that yesterday and he despises the "neocon" today? Is he a libertarian, a "true conservative", an "independent" who says the right is just as bad as the left today?

Did he Ron Paul switch parties again? He did return to the Republicans because today they are more constitutionalist than in 1987, right? Or was that just opportunism?

Yeah, he is so consistent and his followers never change the narrative

[AkivaII]

@scepticsteve

What was the reason Ron Paul gave when he switched parties from Republican to Libertarian, and then back to Republican?

[scepticsteve]

@AkivaII "There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years." - 1987

He also called Reagan a "dramatic failure". Interestingly, when Republicans gained strength he returned under their banner even though squishy Newt was in charge of the House.

So who cares what reasons Ron Paul gives. He obviously will (ab)use Reagan the "failure" or anything else he opposes if he thinks it's useful.

[AkivaII]

@scepticsteve

Did Ron Paul benefit politically when he called President Reagan a dramatic failure, and left the republican party?

[scepticsteve]

@AkivaII Who cares. does Ron Paul benefit when he writes kooky newsletters? Does Ron Paul benefit when he abuses Reagan's name for his cause?

Does Ron Paul benefit from having an annoying fan base that elevates him to cult leader but disenfranchises most right-wingers?

Is there an argument somewhere? I don't think so.

Just write "Ron Paul 2012". All people you care about in your echo chamber will like it. And the rest of us are fascist neocons anyway.

[AkivaII]

@scepticsteve

"Just write "Ron Paul 2012". All people you care about in your echo chamber will like it. And the rest of us are fascist neocons anyway."

I beg your pardon, but from where did you infer that I was a echo chamber for Congressman Paul, or that I regarded those in opposition to him as Fascist Neo-Conservatives?

[scepticsteve]

@AkivaII I apologize for misidentifying you with one of the others who engage me in this threat for critizising dear leader's position. But that's the "argument" that is made in this threat and many others.

I don't see you making any argument, though. What's your point?

[AkivaII]

@scepticsteve

My regards for your kind redaction.

The aim of such inquiry is to determine the consistency and thoroughness of arguments. You will have to forgive my speculation; it is my opinion that there are very few individuals who will articulate exactly why they have opinions, regardless of whether those opinions are reasonable and consistent, or not.

On this particular topic, I am curious as to how one speculates the opinions of Congressman Paul on his behalf?

Respectfully.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve I can tell you haven't done any research on this man. At least understand the facts about these things.

Ron Paul liked Reagan's campaign rhetoric, but then didn't like him after he say how he governed. I don't see this as being inconsistent - Ron was always consistent here.

Ron always despised the Neocon. Have you ever heard this guy talk in 1988? He would have hated them.

I don't know how you call Ron Paul an opportunist. Did you do any research at all?

[scepticsteve]

@egervari You can tell whatever you want. Look how conventiently leave out the new pro Reagan ad. So Ron Paul is absolutely inconsistent on this.

In a dishonest manner he invokes Reagan, not his rhetoric!!!

Sorry to break the news for you. But he is a human being, not a god.

And it's about the issues, not a personality cult.

Naturally, there are several things Ron Paul endorses/does that can be critizised. But nobody is allowed to do that with Paulbots. It's a dogma.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve Of course Ron is a human being. He has changed his positions. He used to be for a gold standard - now he is for competing currencies, gold among them. He used to be for the death penalty - now he is not.

But outside of a few cases, I don't see the contradiction - even in Ron's "stood with reagan" ad. He did stand with reagan during that time.

If Ayn Rand said something and you stood with her, and then she did the opposite in practice, would still stand with her?

[scepticsteve]

@egervari I don't stand with Ayn Rand. I never met her. I disagree on some issues with her record. I don't worship Ayn Rand and I don't propagandize the person.

And I don't demonize people who disagree with Rand on any issue.

You and I both know what the ad wanted to imply. No need to whiggle out of it. It was dishonest to make Reagan fans believe he endorses Reagan's legacy and deeds.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve The point is, changing your support of someone is not the same as being inconsistent with your principles and what you know to be true. They are not related. You can still believe in all of the ideas of Ayn Rand if you conclude them to be correct, no matter how much Ayn Rand would have become a hypocrite. The same goes for Reagan.

I really don't understand you people. You have a guy running for president who agrees with Ayn Rand 90%+ and you're shitting on him.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari I'm not crapping on him at all. I question some of his positions. But as soon as I do it, I'll get fire and demonization, no matter the issues.

Believe me, Ron Paul's positions are not at all 90% of Ayn Rand's. The philosophy has significant differences. The foreign policy of objectivists would be called fascist and anti-american with you guys. But then, that's what you call everyone else.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve A vote for Ron is not even a lesser of evils. It is a real step in the right direction. What is the alternative? Voting for any of the other fascists in Romney, Gingrich or Obama? How is that any better? I know you didn't say it was better, but the differences between these statists and Ron Paul are absolutely astounding.

Frankly, a lack of support for Ron Paul is just going to throw America into full-blown fascism at this point - that, or outright civil war.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari Sure. It's Ron Paul, the god, or scorched earth. Everyone else is a fascist/nazi. No discuccion on issues necessary.

You just cannot have a differing opinion. Hail Ron Paul. And we'll turn every comment section into a Ron Paul propaganda outlet. Hail Paul!

[egervari]

@scepticsteve I never said 'everyone' else was fascist. But how can you seriously look at someone like Obama and the people voting yes to the National Defense Authorization Act and say they are not a bunch of fascists?

How can you look at Newt's ties to all of these pro-world government groups and his anti-constitutional positions and say he isn't one?

There is issues to back these claims up. Saying there isn't because I didn't type them in a 500 character limit is dishonest

[scepticsteve]

@egervari No need to split hairs, we get the message.

So there is no way to look at the "alternative fuel" subsidies Ron Paul endorses and not say he is a fscist? Because you take one position and then judge on that incident about the entire person. In that sense ROn Paul is a fascist in Randian views. He is ok with states imposing restrictions on freedoms like abortion.

Oh well, we see that's a moronic argument, claiming someone embraces an entire ideology because of a vote on X.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve You have failed to separate his personal opinions on subjects from what he would actually do. The constitution doesn't allow for him to tell the states what they should do, although I'm quite certain he would be personally opposed to government programs at the state level just as he is opposed to them at the federal level. But there's nothing in the constitution that would allow for that.

If you want the states to stop, run for office in a state.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari You see, you always have to go after people and for Ron Paul. No matter what. I didn't claim he would tell states what to do. I said he is ok with some fascist positions as long as states enforce them.

Where did I fail?

It doesn't matter. You just attack attack attack. That's why you can never have a straight argument. You will twist as long as necessary to defend the person instead of the issue. No one else does that.

If Ron Paul dies tomorrow I'm still for lower taxes.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve I personally wish that there wasn't any government force at the local, state or federal level. I'm 99.9% sure Ron Paul agrees with this. So where is the contradiction? The constitution does not permit him to enforce his views of what the state or local governments should do regarding many issues, so while he may have a principle that says there should be no government-run education, he would still have no authority to enforce this everywhere. That's our system

[scepticsteve]

@egervari True, but it has nothing to do with my point. You have no problem with generalising that other's are fascists when say Romney supported Obamacare on the state level. But when Paul supports tax subsidies on the federal level (unconstitutional, fascist) what is that? A fascist position. However, I wouldn't call Paul a fascist on that. I don't care about attacking Paul, just some of his positions...

Your fascism argument is designed to attack non-Pauls for being non-Pauls.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve Show me where Payl supports tax subsidies at the federal level. Please show me. The reason I dismiss it is because I have NEVER heard of such a charge against him, nor have I heard him say it or write it.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari Look up his official website, there are many entries that I disagree with. Under "energy" he states the tax credits for "alternative fuels", i.e. corn ethanol in Iowa and elsewhere (although that's not a president's business, imho). Maybe you should talk about the issues instead of reaffirming how great Ron Paul is. Then we can influence politics in general instead of dividing over specific candidates.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve I think another point too that is very important.

Ron's plan, while not perfect and immediately taking us to the kind of society Ayn Rand talked about, is a step in that direction. Every other candidate is a step in the generally opposite direction. Gary Johnson excluded - I like a lot of his ideas as well.

In some ways, Ron has to get elected. If he ran on a pure platform without transition, I don't think he'd have a chance in hell. That's not inconsistent though.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve Here's your answer.

youtube.com/watch?v=dLkKKeFYJv­Q

[egervari]

@scepticsteve My facism is nothing of the sword. Fascism, to me, is when the citizens don't have property rights, and the government can make use of your property as it sees fit. Currently, we soft-fascism in america because you can get full ownership of some things, but not everything. We also forms of socialism. I think the differences between socialism and fascism are pretty superficial though. They both gut individual property rights, but in different ways.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari Fascism (from Italian/Roman fasces, wooden sticks that surround an axe as a symbol of Roman state power) narrowly means using the force of government to achieve goals. You can have perfect property rights but still a fascist state (although often property rights are the first victims).

Socialist by definition are fascist, they seek to achieve their utopia by government/collective force, not voluntary exchange.

I think by that definition fascism is widespread, yes.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve I wouldn't have called "candidate" George W. Bush a fascist. I liked his foreign policy message, for the most part. But what he actually did was awful, and is absolutely part of a fascist state. I mean, how is growing a police state, starting more wars around the world, etc. not part of fascism? It is. But definitions aside, this was a huge violation of property rights and it's very much consistent to oppose the "president" while agreeing with the "candidate".

[egervari]

@scepticsteve I really don't see how point this constitutional argument is inconsistent, nor do I see how it's an attack. It's just the truth. We have every reason to believe that once things get better once the federal government is shrunk that the state governments could very well follow in that example. It would certainly cause a revolution in the type of candidates running for office, that's for damn sure.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari No it won't ever yimperfection of everyone else will be called fascism. You Paul guys annoy everyone else. Don't you see that? Paul runs a Reagan ad but he is not acknowledged for the good things he accomplished (against a big spending majority in congress) but smeared as a neocon, warmonger, etc.

You think you are on a crusade, but the conduct of Paul and his followers will make it impossible to change things on the issues. Besides, the president alone will change few things

[egervari]

@scepticsteve I'm not talking about 1 position. Obama and Gingrich are serial fascists. If I didn't have a 500-character limit, I could list a novel.

Don't you understand yet? It doesn't who the president is in most cases. They almost never actually do what they say, whether that's Reagan, Obama, Bush, or whatever.

I happen to like what the candidate "XYZ" said, but more times than not, someone pulling the strings makes him do something the exact opposite. So yeah, it's fascist.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari Ah ok. So that's what Ron Paul embraced about Reagan in his ad. That he was a sellout, liar, and a puppet who's strings have been pulled by dark forces.

Your definition of fascism is somewhat diffuse, imho.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve Okay look - Republicans say they like "Reagan" over and over for his rederick. Ron is showing that he supported that rederick when other candidates didn't. How is that inconsistent?

What happened after was out of Ron's control. Most presidents are absolutely puppets. Some more than others.

I think Ron might be the first in a long time not to succumb to it. His record shows that he hasn't yet - and nobody else can say that.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve Would Ron also become a puppet? I sure hope not. If this is all a big joke and he's going to really continue the welfare and the warfare state once he gets elected, then this nation is finished. It's done. It's over.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve The reason I am very optimistic with Ron Paul is that there's no evidence that I have ever come across where special interest groups have paid him to vote a certain way, or take a certain position. I can't even list one fascists policy he supports, but the other candidates have dozens.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari Subsidizing "alternative fuels", i.e. pandering to corn ethanol country, is certainly fascist. But that doesn't make him a fascist in general. So, be optimistic if you like. I have other problems with Paul, including that most of his positions have zero significance for the presidency.

He will not have any influence on money and he will have a hard time dealing with congress other than cutting the military with Democrats to have more money for entitlements.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve Ron has said that he has to pick and choose where he can cut from government from where he can't. He has to prioritize. That doesn't mean that is his vision. He can't do everything in a day - no president can. We are in so much shit.

Besides I genuinely and honestly wouldn't say these points are fascists. He has violated no property rights. He's letting them keep their own money. How is that fascist?

[scepticsteve]

@egervari If you pick winners and losers that's exactly the kind of meddling we don't want. If you give tax credits to one form of fuel but not to all others, that's government influence over the conomy, i.e. fascism.

I've see this argument by Paulistas a lot. Why do you try to defend that stuff? The issue is clear, giving alternative fuels an advantage is meddling. If I tax you with 50% while giving others a 45% effective tax rate that's picking winners since you don't give it to all!

[egervari]

@scepticsteve As for not having a straight argument, what have I not been straight about? What has Ron not been straight about? Ron was always for low taxes, but reagan raised taxes... and Ron didn't like that... and then you say Ron is inconsistent?

This isn't about people - this is exactly about positions. If I didn't know any better, I would say your arguments are distortion to the truth to make your point.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari It's exactly not about positions. It's about having an argument pro Ron Paul, no matter what. You evade every legitimate point of critique. And you want to discuss Ron Paul only. then you engage in generalizations. Anything that fits a narrative.

If I talk about tax subsidies fro green scams (unconstitutional/fascist but Paul's position) you ignore it. I've been through this cycle of arguments with Pualbots once too often.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve Okay, let's start over. Why have I evaded? Please just go one point at a time.

Ron isn't for subsidies. Tell me where he has voted for these? Tell me which speech, interview, book, etc. he has said this? If you're right, I want to know - maybe I am not aware of it.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari I don't want to waste our time, just research Ron Pauls presidential positions before you make claims. One example:

"Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies." - RP website 2012

He is at least for this subsidy! Or did Rockwell write this?

You are not aware of this because you make the points of perfection that "Ron isn't for subsidies". Which is untrue in more than one way.

Again, we are talking about RP, not the issues...

[egervari]

@scepticsteve Removing taxes is not a subsidy. The company made the money. What Ron is saying is that they have a right to keep their earnings.

Ron has a vision of what he wants in the long term - and that is absolutely everybody to be treated equally - but he can't just abolish the irs in the first year. How can he? The system is so screwed up that there has to be a transition.

Point is, this isn't a wealth transfer.

[scepticsteve]

@egervari Look it up in an encyclopedia. Tax credits are a parade example of subsidies. Changing incentives via different tax rules picks winners and loser. This is a subsidy. That's a fact, not an opinion open for debate. And it's wrong.

It is a wealth transfer. If you know economics 101 you know that this will pick winners (corn ethanol) and losers (conventional fuel).

All I ask is that you acknowledge this is a bad proposition by Paul and he should change it to become better.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve I'm looking at his positions on his website now and he's giving out tax breaks in a rediculous number of areas that I don't think a single individual in the country would not get some form of a tax break.

I agree that the tax breaks are not exactly equal. I still believe Ron when he says a transition. I do agree with you that it is not a perfect policy. It is better than what we have, and if given 4 more years, I genuinely believe he would do more of his endgame.

[egervari]

@scepticsteve I just think it's a tad dishonest to look at the plan for the first 4 years, but ignore what he's been saying for the last 30, and still continues to say. He has never wavered or lied about what should happen in the long run.

[egervari]

Ron Paul 2012 :)

[capitalistsamurai]

@enmartinsen81 I just wanted to re-state and clarify what Dr. Brook meant. Individuals within the corporation will have an individual right for sure. What I wanted Dr. Brook to be more specific about was that not granting individual rights to corporate group. Coca Cola or McDonald's co. is not an individual, right? Only the individual working in the Coca Cola or McDonald's co. should have rights.

[scepticsteve]

@capitalistsamurai Corporations are legal fictions. They cannot exercise any right. Only individuals or groups of individuals can exercise rights.

Do you lose your rigth to free speech if you want to exercise it as a group? Obviously not!

Why is it so hard to understand this? What is your point against "McDonalds" having rights? It's a group of people with the same (business) interest. Why would anyone challenge this?

[capitalistsamurai]

Problem is that corporations are "legal persons" entitled to rights exclusively given to the individual. Corporate rights, Dr. Brook, is, under our current legal system, is a group rights! No to group rights! No to corporate rights!