/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3825132

sage

>>3825132

Any excuse to repost this image...

He'll just be controlled by corporations and AIPAC like every other president.

>>3825171
No, he would probably be assassinated by the cia or something like kennedy was

>>3825183
Asspained Obamafag detected.

hur dur constitution worship, outsourcing hard decisions, creationism, libertarian idealism. what a faggot

My only regret to having Ron Paul be the president is having him off the House finance committees where he punches his peers in the balls on a daily basis.

>>3825187
obama is a much better turd than what your side is shitting out

>>3825196
This is the dumbest pic I've ever seen. No one wants their job sent to China.

>>3825187
>ignores argument
>hur dur dat means i win right????

>>3825206

I'll take that wager.

(and by wager, I mean "troll bait")

>>3825215
I could spend days refuting these shitty Reddit images.

>>3825187

While that picture is somewhat accurate to the representation of most evangelical Republicans, it misses the point entirely. People who want those laws view the allowance of the complaints to exist as a violation of their religious beliefs.

Note, I'm not saying they're right. It's just how they view things.

>>3825215

I do. You should, too.

>>3825235
>I do. You should, too.

Nope.

>>3825238
My grandfather was a member of the USW. He saw back in the 60s that they were going to eventually destroy themselves and our manufacturing base.

>>3825215

That is an easy one. A unions only function is to raise the price of goods and services for consumers.

>>3825235
>Hates representation between labor and management.

Oh, and don't tell me "Well you can just talk to the boss yourself." Because I ain't talking about middle class jobs where you see the boss every day, I am talking about factory jobs, working class jobs, where if you complain they sack you and replace you with another minimum wage worker.

>>3825238

Look up news stories on the ILWU and the Longview Grain Elevator.

Thug behavior at it's worst.

>>3825247
If the consumers aren't making any spending money, who cares what the price is?

>2011
>not voting for Ron Paul

I seriously hope you republitards and independents don't do this

>>3825255
I don't care for those individual cases. Workers have to be protected.

>>3825249
My mom was a union representative for years and told me that all unions do is let lazy fucks sit around at work on the internet all day and not get fired.

>>3825262

Consumers.

Unions cannot even survive without gubbmint help.

>>3825272
She wasn't a very good Union representative then.

>>3825269

They are not protected by the gubbmint or the unions. They are protected by being in demand.

>>3825272

This must be why the neckbeards on here favor them.

>>3825255
compare that to case of unfair dismissal, underpayment, and poor working conditions

You have any idea what the trucking industry was like when the Teamsters owned it? It was horrendous. If you didn't join the union, you might wake up one morning to find your truck set on fire or other shit.

>>3825249
i got news for you, e-proletariate: the only union jobs are skilled labor and

1. they can't just toss your ass out because you have a particular skillset
2. you see your boss everyday, usually his office is above the floor with a big ass window.
3. you make pretty decent scratch. More than enough to make some lib arts barista blush.

For example, I was a mechanic in a paper mill for 2 years, and the whole place would grind to a halt in about 1.5 hours without one. Made 22 bucks an hour, straight out of HS.

>>3825275
>Unions
>Government help
Pick one.

Senators listen to the money. Who has more money? Unions or Corporations?

>>3825285

> skilled labor
> right out of high school

>>3825249 "Hates representation between labor and management."

Nice straw man.

>>I am talking about factory jobs, working class jobs, where if you complain they sack you and replace you with another minimum wage worker.

With unions, you may avoid getting fired, but that doesn't stop the business from shipping you back to the union hall and asking for someone better.

>>3825281
>They are not protected by the gubbmint or the unions


doin it wrong

>>3825294

Have you heard the phrase "right to work"? Unions are most prevalent in states where the worker has no right to work without union/government interference.

>>3825269 Workers have to be protected.

Odd, that's the justification given by the ILWU, too.

>>3825294
Given that the Democrats and the unions are one...

>>3825312
and what's wrong with it? the market doesn't achieve that.

Libtards somehow still think it's 1910 and their mother burned to death in the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire.

It's so big.

>>3825282 compare that to case of unfair dismissal, underpayment, and poor working conditions

This isn't the early 19th and 20th Century. Let me be frank: unions absolutely once served a necessary purpose. Their usefulness now is easily questionable, especially when you consider all the non union jobs that exist out there earning good wages, having benefits, having good work conditions, and the possibility of earning rewards.

The power of the employee has been improved. Mostly thanks to unionized labor movements of the past. Trying to tell me that a company can get away with the "old ways" now in our highly sensitive society with strong special interest groups out there is ludicrous.

>>3825323
yeah cause since then it's been smooth sailin, yeah?


no.

>>3825340
I don't hear of any TSW fires happening today, do you?

>>3825308
If by right to work you mean right to be a wage slave.

>Right to work
I love that phrase, reminds me of,

Right to life - Abortion
Protection of marriage Act - Gays cannot marry

>>3825345
yeah because fire's the only thing to watch for right???

>>3825314
Democrats just trick labor into voting for them.

Democrats are pro big business. Pro bailing out the Banking/Housing/Auto industries. They arent for bailing out workers at all.

>>3825337
Special interest groups come and go

>>3825337
If the Tea Party has their way, we might as well be living in Railroad/Factory tycoon america.

>>3825361
We won't because it's not 1905 anymore.

>>3825345
And why is that?
Because of government regulation, gained through unions petitioning the state government.

>>3825346

> working consensually
> wage slave

Pick one.

>>3825317 and what's wrong with it?

What's wrong with engaging in vandalism, destruction of private party, harassment, terrorism, breaking-and-entering private property, and other thuggish behavior?

Nothing, apparently. I'm just weird.

>>the market doesn't achieve that.

If you are a marketable and desirable potential employee, you're going to find work. Whether that means you have a trade, a set of skills, an educational degree, or just lots of fucking experience, you become more valuable. Why should some nobody with no skills, no education, no experience, and / or a poor work history have the same protection as a person with any of the above?

>>3825364
That doesn't mean things are all fine and dandy now

>>3825368
>Not getting the point.
Actually I know you understand what I am trying to say. And are just ignoring the point and focusing on the word "Slave."

Prefer if I say wage "Indentured servant?"

>>3825370
>What's wrong with engaging in vandalism, destruction of private party, harassment, terrorism, breaking-and-entering private property, and other thuggish behavior?

your unions are doing it wrong. that doesnt mean all unions are doing it wrong


>>Why should some nobody with no skills, no education, no experience, and / or a poor work history have the same protection as a person with any of the above?

because thats inhumane.

>>3825357 Special interest groups come and go

Yes they do. However, some of the biggest and most influential ones, much like the largest and most powerful unions, have been around for a long time. And, in this day and age, there's a special interest for EVERYTHING. If you need someone to help you and your fellow workers, you can find someone.

>>3825382
>much like the largest and most powerful unions

Thanks for agreeing with me. Unions serve a purpose.

>>3825361 If the Tea Party has their way, we might as well be living in Railroad/Factory tycoon america.

Since the Tea Party has nothing to do with this, I'm just going to ignore this as another straw man argument. However, I would like to say that I haven't seen anything in the Tea Party movement / platform that seems to indicate that they'd do anything of the sort.

>>3825346
It's called doublespeak, bro. Read 1984.

In Britain we have public schools and an elected government.

>>3825380
>>Why should some nobody with no skills, no education, no experience, and / or a poor work history have the same protection as a person with any of the above?

>because thats inhumane

Confirmed for typical liberal.

>>3825392
You haven't seen any "right to work" leaders in the tea party?

Also, how is that a strawman, If I didn't call you a teabagger?

>>3825397
>confirmed for sensible

ftfy

>>3825397
>Liberal
>A bad thing
Confirmed for trailertrash, I mean conservative

>>3825380 your unions are doing it wrong. that doesnt mean all unions are doing it wrong

I can find a lot of examples of unions engaging in this kind of "protective behavior". No, not all unions have done anything like this, and as such we cannot lump them all together. So I am in the wrong on that point. However, I would like to point out that in the case of the ILWU incidents in Washington, the company that decided not to use ILWU workers decided to go with a different union. So, in effect, one union is indirectly competing with another union. When we think about that, what's the difference between that and two individual workers vying for the same job? And, thus, what's the point of either union existing?

>because thats inhumane.

Inhumane? We're not torturing or killing that person. That person is going to have to make their way in the world the same as anybody else. He just isn't going to have an easier time of it without the union protecting his worthless ass.

Very honest man. Shittiest economist in government.

>>3825411
I'd be more inclined to think trailer park residents vote Democrat because welfare.

>>3825385 Thanks for agreeing with me. Unions serve a purpose.

Heh... with a special interest group in existence that could do the same thing as the union, no... that means the union serves no purpose anymore.

>>3825379

> indentured servitude
> working for pay, and not owing money to anyone (save for opting into a loan of money)

Pick one.

>>3825411

Classic Liberal is fine, but democrat/ a person that calls themselves liberal today is huur derp hilarious.

>>3825419
it doesn't matter how many skills you have or experience, if you work for someone you should be given a minimum number of rights and you can't ensure they're kept all by yourself


but you already agreed with me that unions serve a valid purpose anyway

>>3825429
unions are more reliable.

>>3825439

True, they have raised the price of good and services since day one. Consistent robbery.

>>3825398

Hmm.. you're right. S'not a straw man, it was just a red herring. Tea Party has nothing to do with anything.

>>You haven't seen any "right to work" leaders in the tea party?

I'm sure there are. Does that mean the entire Tea Party supports "right to work" legislation? Does every Republican removing all of our bases from countries around the world because Ron Paul does?

This isn't the 1930s when union organizers were beaten up by Henry Ford's hired goons. Nowadays they're fat greedy lazy fucks.

>>3825435 it doesn't matter how many skills you have or experience, if you work for someone you should be given a minimum number of rights and you can't ensure they're kept all by yourself

Why? What rights do you have? You agree to want to work for a particular corporation and sign an agreement with them that you can be terminated by them. If you're truly valuable, they're not going to toss you aside that easily. If you really want to ensure that your "rights" are protected with the corporation, make yourself not-expendable.

>>3825451
>True, they have raised wages and quality of living from day one. Consistent justice.

>>3825439 unions are more reliable.

I would say they're more "directly involved" and, thus, more readily active and available. I don't know if that means they're more "reliable". "Reliable at what?" should be the question.

>>3825470
>make yourself not-expendable.

It's idealistically naive to assume that all individuals have that power all the time

>>3825247
>>3825451
Im curious liberty: What do you think about natural and coercive monopolies. What is the best way to stop them from taking advantage of those under their influence

>>3825480
they can be trusted to stand up for the worker when it's not enough for him to stand up for himself.

>>3825487 It's idealistically naive to assume that all individuals have that power all the time

I'm not even close to making all inclusive statements like that. What I am saying is that a person who has gained skills, experience, and a positive work history can leverage themselves against a corporation for higher wages and benefits by simply saying "pay me more, or I'll go somewhere that will". A person like that can absolutely do that.

A person who has none of those things has nothing. That doesn't mean he's never going to find work and never going to survive in society. It just means he has to work harder at it than the guy who has gone out and already done the work necessary to give himself negotiating power.

vote ron paul 2012

>>3825511
because everyone has the same level of opportunity, right??

as i said idealistic to absurd

>>3825500

Coercive monopoly? You mean a state?

The best way to ruin any state is to inject consent into society.

>>3825514
a guy who's scared to voice his opinion. yai lets vote for him!!!

>>3825522

Of course not. Different body structures, athletic ability, musical ability, etc make for uneven opportunity. This would be a good thing and UNSTOPPABLE.

>>3825504 they can be trusted to stand up for the worker when it's not enough for him to stand up for himself.

The idea of the union is to work for the benefit of the group, not the individual, necessarily. Nobody "collectively bargains" for a single worker. What can they really do for the individual worker?

>>3825523
the state is pretty large and include multiple actors with varying interests and accountability.

to suggest it's similar to a corporate monopoly is also absurd

>>3825523
yes a state industry or otherwise protected from competition industry.

Im more specifically asking how you would deal with both coersive monopolies and natural monopolies in unison

>>3825540

There is no corporation without a government. They cannot be separated.

>>3825530
You only mentioned half of it

You've made yourself blind to that which disturbs you're idealistic goals. But you'll have to face them eventually. No one will take you seriously if you don't.

>>3825548
>Tangent.


nevertheless, the state is not a monopoly (it can be but most of the time it's not)

>>3825522 because everyone has the same level of opportunity, right??

It doesn't even have to be an equality question. Even a worker who has moderate skills, education, or experience is more valuable than the guy with none. A worker with low skills, education, or experience is more valuable than the guy with none. To what level are you trying to imply that the "none" guy has somehow been unfairly treated by life that he can't achieve even a bit of what the others do?

And, no, not everybody has the same resources available to them to achieve an equality of opportunity. Some have to work harder at it. Some have to work MUCH harder at it. And some may never get to the same level as someone above them. That's life. You can't ever bring this into equal balance.

>>3825547

You cannot eliminate natural monopolies. They are called natural because they happen without government interference, and government interference cannot eliminate them.

Explain coercive monopoly. Do you mean a monopoly that initiates acts of aggression against others, or do you mean they charge more than you personally like for a good or service?

>>3825525 a guy who's scared to voice his opinion. yai lets vote for him!!!

You sure we're talking about the same dude?

>>3825562
Ron paul just says, it's up to you. i've got my opinion but I'll let the states decide. What's the point of him?

>>3825551

> vague reference to nothing

>>3825560
i think he means a monopoly enforced by the state

>>3825565
Inequality

blind libtards

>>3825554

The state is only a monopoly. To top it off, coercive is the only way a state can be.

>>3825556
>You can't ever bring this into equal balance.

I think we have a duty to try. thats just me though. I'm sentimental like that....

>>3825572

Are you sure you are referencing the right person here? Me? A libtard?

>>3825571

That is every unnatural monopoly.

>>3825573
You can soften the blow with legitimacy. Accountability. participation. etc

>>3825567 Ron paul just says, it's up to you. i've got my opinion but I'll let the states decide. What's the point of him?

Paul has plenty of his own opinions. Go read up on him or watch some Youtube clips of him at the primaries and debates. The guy speaks his mind quite often.

I think you're confusing the idea of giving the states the power to decide with a lack of conviction. This country has a federalist system for a reason: the states have power and the federal government has power. What Paul wants to do is return some of that power to the states, where it has been eroded and usurped by increasingly unitary minded politicians ever since the end of the Civil War.

>>3825579
lib = libertarian


dont get hung up on political language it's recycled.

>>3825583
I know his opinions. I know he voices them. But he has no manifesto. Just some vague ideal about freedom for all

>>3825580

The only legitimate state would be 100 percent consented to by the governed. In other words, it would not be a state.

>>3825585

I am not a libertarian (minarchist).

>>3825592
>The only legitimate state would be 100 percent consented to by the governed. In other words, it would not be a state.


Compromise. It's kinda vital in a representational democracy

>>3825576 I think we have a duty to try. thats just me though. I'm sentimental like that....

Now who's being naive? Just sayin'...

I believe in equality of opportunity insofar as the idea that everybody has a right to be treated equally, to have access to society's benefits, education, and participate in civic duties regardless of who they are, what they are, where they came from, etc. What I don't agree with is the idea that everybody be shoehorned into only one social order. Some people have more resources than others... why is it wrong that they take advantage of it? Because it's unfair to some other guy who doesn't? So instead, you're going to lower one guy down and raise another guy up to a particular level and make them both walk it whether they want to or not?

That's way too much for me. That kind of social engineering would require a complete dismantle of our country, and idealistically I'd be opposed to it.

libertariansm is inherently anti-science and pro engineering

science is not for profit

engineering is

>>3825560
a coersive monopoly is one where competition is prevented or hindered by law. Eg. Rail networks, Medical care

In practice for amenities this means protected companies can rise prices higher than competitive value

>>3825599

But there is no representational democracy, nor would any logical person support that majority force rule notion. There is only a constitutional republic, and it is only slightly less shitty.

>>3825601
it's not naive to assume it's possible to improve the lives of others.

>>3825591 Just some vague ideal about freedom for all

That's not a manifesto? It was once...

Ron paul is a creationist anti-abortionist fundamentalist christian.

>>3825604

Why are you telling me about the problems of the state?

>>3825610
Yeeeaahhh i need something more substantial

>>3825607

You are aware you have elections right? That's representation.

>>3825613

And he supports no federal law telling you to follow any of that. This would be the opposite of the last two christian presidents -- Dubya, and Bush II (Obama).

Can't have science without funding.


It's called basic research

>>3825613

So he disagrees with everything I stand for, yet he's determined to make sure there's no laws requiring creationism in school, no law against abortion and no extra privileged if I happen to be christian.

How's that any argument against him?

>>3825618

Yes, some people are allowed to vote.

>>3825622
he supports the rights of the states to ban abortion, which would occur in the vast majority of the southern states.

that is a violation of person's liberty but he does not care because his religion tells him not to

>>3825609 it's not naive to assume it's possible to improve the lives of others.

No one said it was. What IS naive is truly making everybody equal. That's not possible. Not yet anyway. You'd have to be talking about a complete economic and social reordering AND biological / chemical engineering necessary to physically and mentally make everybody equal.

Just not plausible. Even if it was, I think, inevitably, human competitive behavior would dictate that some differences would still appear. Thus, you'd never ever be able to completely absolutely make everybody equal enough that there would be no advantage or disadvantage in opportunity.

>>3825625
his official stance is "leave it up to the states"

>hmm i think i remember hearing this right around the early to mid 1800s for some reason..

>>3825560
>They are called natural because they happen without government interference, and government interference cannot eliminate them.
Nope, they are called natural monopolies because they exist readily in an unregulated system. Almost all countries regulate against natural monopolies, dividing them up if they get full control of a market

The 'almost' monopolies that you get allot of now such as technology companies would be considered coersive because it is the patent system (a legal regulation) that reinforces their control over the industry

>>3825628

You're presuming to know what Ron Paul's motivations are. Worse, you're projecting your own prejudices against Christians onto him. Bad form.

It's also irrelevant, since the Supreme Court decision trumps all state and federal laws.

>>3825615
because you keep avoiding the question

>>3825645

> no they exist with gubbmint

Sigh, I just said that.

You cannot break up a natural monopoly, you can only take it over.

>>3825649

Ask me the question then.

>>3825632

I swear I think some people think the country existed before the states did.

>>3825580
NAH DUDE THE GOVERNMENTS ALL VIOLENT AND SHIT MAN THE US IS JUST AS BAD AS SOVIET RUSSIA BECAUSE THEY BOTH USE VIOLENCE

>>3825666
U.S. would cease to be a world superpower if it reverted to states having more control then the federal government.

>>3825655
how would you deal with both coersive monopolies (which are caused by government controlled) and natural monopolies (which are currently prevented by government control?

This has been the question since
>>3825500
but you are apparently incapable of googling a few basic economic principles so have distracted from the topic repeatedly

>Single picture of Ron Paul
>129 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

10/10 OP

>>3825602

Privatization will most likely get us too space faster.

>>3825655
>You cannot break up a natural monopoly, you can only take it over.
wth are you on about. The standard way of dealing with a natural monopoly is to order the company to sell of a portion of it's assets to a would be a competitor. This happens allot more often than you think

>>3825708
haha you honestly believe that? we've been to space and private enterprise didn't get us there. you're just pulling conclusions out your ass

>>3825675 U.S. would cease to be a world superpower if it reverted to states having more control then the federal government.

The states have NEVER had more control than the federal government. The Constitution provided for a strong federal government, and the balance did just fucking fine. I reject this notion that the US wouldn't still be a superpower today if the government didn't exist in the balance that was in place before the Civil War.

A lot of what made us a superpower was simple luck and opportunity. In other words, the other countries fell on their faces thanks to the death of colonialism and two world wars financially fucking them for decades.

>>3825655
>i accept the information that supports my point of view
>but not this other information because it would mean reconsidering my opinion
>hurr durr

never change tea-partiers/libertarians

>>3825708
> Privatization will most likely get us too space faster.

That's why SpaceX and other companies are chasing federal money, eh?

Get over your delusion. If the government money dried up, SO WOULD ALL THIS SO-CALLED PRIVATE SPACEFLIGHT. So it's not really private.

>>3825700

Eliminate the state.

>>3825721

A natural monopoly is simply any good or service that cannot be built or provided by two firms due to costs, essentially.

I only accept facts, and truth.

>>3825803
>Eliminate the state.

Suddenly roads in disrepair. no libraries. no public amenities whatsoever. Fuck no

>>3825817

There are private libraries and private roads now. Any other "public" amenities can and would be provided if there was no gubbmint monopoly.

>not supporting ron paul
>2011
I seriously hope you guys don't do this. Despite being a raging liberal and not agreeing with many of his economic policies and opinions on social issues, he is the only canidate not under the influence rothschild political control complex and the rest of those schmucks. He will also reduce the power of the executive branch, stop our imperialistic wars, and return the power back to the states.

>>3825871
And what would be the difference between a company building roads and providing you security and health and a state ?

And in walks a NWO conspiracy nut...

you make Liberty look really good.. At least he knows when he is talking about a Utopia.

>>3825900

Consent.

>Ron paul becomes president
>ends wars
>eliminates dozens of government organizations
>axes the fed
>lowers taxes significantly
>roads become privately owned
>schools now run by the state, significantly more private schools and charter schools
>military now entirely defense based, the department of defense is no longer on the offense
>government becomes transparent, paul cuts of the corporate strangle hold on government
>with little regulation, innovation can thrive
>cuts government breaks for big oil
>social issues now entirely controlled by the states

sounds like a paradise.

>>3825891
There you go, under estimating the very empire that invented propaganda.
http://wikischool.org/research/Masonic_politicians.html
>Ron Paul - controlled opposition politician (and a fake patriot - by which they can measure the US patriot movement)
There is far too much there to pasta, even your arch enemy the evil Rothschilds through Rockefeller are connected to him. He was even working for Reagan when he made a concordat with the Vatican and all that implies...

>>3825706
No text even needed.

>>3825915
where does the company get the money to build a road? who pays for it?

>>3825915
Consent ? So you think you have power over a private company but not over your state ?

We should explore a transition away from public libraries over to subscription libraries. It WILL cost me more, but I'm fine with that. I'm a heavy user of the public library, but we tax everybody to provide for what I'm enjoying. A real Libertarian wants real points of consumption to be funded by their consumers.

>>3825932
haha exactly the state works for you (thats why it has a monopoly on violence - because it's not a single entity, it's the people) the state is more consenual than private companies even given the monopoly on force

the monopoly the state holds isnt bad. its really just another way of saying the police exist. you can't have a private police force. security companies. where the legitimacy in that???

>>3825931

Consensual transactions. The company.

>>3825932

Money talks loudly, and private companies cannot create laws.

>>3825922
>Military becomes private
>Terrorists attacks the country
>Uncoordinated response from the different military companies

sounds like a private civil war.

>>3825951
>Consensual transactions. The company.


the public aren't going to want to pay that

>Money talks loudly,

but it doesn't give nearly the same accountability as voting or public participation or consultation in government policy making.

this has been proved time and time again in the UK - just look at the damage done by neoliberalism

>>3825953
We wouldn't want that because then we'd be like medieval Europe with feudal nobility who can't unite effectively against a common enemy.

>>3825951
Money talks loudly but primary needs talks louder.
You can't boycott a road that you need to go to work.

>private companies cannot create laws.
but they can create contracts.

>>3825969
Also they can influence the government to pass laws.

>>3825970
and they already do.

>>3825970
>>3825973
Example. GE wants the gumbint to ban incandescent bulbs because CFL carries a higher markup.

private provision is not more consenual than state provision of services. it only seems that way because you're sacrificing a lot for it. you must be getting a lot on return right?? right???? it's important that you continue to delude yourself or else you'd fall into a deep depression after your idealistic worldview crumbled

>>3825963

They already paid through the businesses other ventures, silly.

It gives more accountability. The state kills, maims, injures, tortures a thousand fold more people, and on purpose.

>>3825969

You can boycott a road anytime.

And contracts are ideal, as they require consent by both parties.

In the end, all government derives from the consent of the governed, including, yes, even a police state like China.

>>3826001
>The state kills, maims, injures, tortures a thousand fold more people, and on purpose.


get out of china

>They already paid

and then that's it. the company goes off to provide and if they do a crappy job, they can't be held responsible. they never are. all that *might* happen is it looks bad on them and a competitor takes their place. meanwhile the public is stuck with a shitty service and needs to spend more money to fix it. And the new company they get in to replace it might not be any better than the original depending on the diversity of the market.

The state offers security that no one else can.

>>3826009
>and then that's it. the company goes off to provide and if they do a crappy job, they can't be held responsible

But there is. They suck and you quit using their product/service.

>>3826009
>The state offers security that no one else can

butthatswrongyouretard.jpg

>>3826053
Ah the assumption of prefect information and perfect choice, with a dollop of assumed infinite resources. Every free market fundamentalist's friend.

> "Scientists"
> Voting for someone who wants to defund/privatize education, doesn't believe in global warming or evolution, and wants to turn the U.S. into Somalia v2.0

ishygddt

>>3826074
Speak ye any English?

>>3826001
>You can boycott a road anytime.
Yes, but not indefinitely, if it is the only road in the sector, you'll have to take eventually.
Or you could go for a hike, but this would be a great leap backwards.

Liberalism only works if you can choose between different companies, but with territorial and logistic infrastructures, the choice is physically limited. So you need to pass on those services to an entity that will work for the benefit of all (or at least that is supposed to, unlike a private company) : a state.

>And contracts are ideal, as they require consent by both parties.
In theory, yes. But in practice, if the client disagrees with the contract, he can go fuck himself.

>>3826083
>So you need to pass on those services to an entity that will work for the benefit of all (or at least that is supposed to, unlike a private company) : a state.

So in other words, you want to return to the utter failure of nationalised industry like the UK of the 1970s.

Ron Paul broke politics and needs to be nerfed.

Q: Do you believe in a law against liberal principle x?
A: I do not believe it is up to the federal government to decide x.

This sounds libertarian, but conservatives know they can still illegalize x at the STATE level.

Meaning if you're pro-x, he sounds pro-x. If you're anti-x, he sounds anti-x.

This is bad because it is divisive. Also, red states have gay people too.

shut up d.webster

I don't think the president has the power to even half the things ron paul promises.

Congress and the senate need to agree before he can do jack shit. And they wont.

>>3826167
He can put an end to the wars overseas. He's commander in chief, he tells the generals what to do.

wHaT aRe wE??????

wait wait wait.........is denying proven scientific facts closed minded and crazy? wait, no probally not.
I'd vote for someone whoz does that. yea! gimme weed and no woar!!!!!!!!!!11

>>3826167
If he becomes president, his message will be heard by almost everyone in the. Once the people have been exposed to the truth, they will demand congress to agree with Ron Paul's policies.

That's the problem right now. Ignorance and/or brainwashing.

>>3826167

He can pull all troops out of every base worldwide without having consent from anyone

You know what, fuck it. I'm voting for this piece of shit no matter what. I don't care if I have to write it in.

Status quo is clearly not going to accomplish what I'd like to see accomplished... perhaps Ron Paul will, perhaps he won't.

I love the anti-imperialism and anti-militarism. I love the advocacy for doing away with/seriously reforming social security/medicare/medicaid . I like the anti-corporate influence in politics.

He scares me sometimes when he gets up there and starts talking about reinstating the gold standard and disbanding the Fed. I'm not sure how I feel about taking our banking system back 100 years.

He has no charisma, no eloquency, no youth and no chance, but what the hell, why not?

Wouldn't it be cool just to see him win? Like... take that establishment!

>>3826264
> they will demand congress to agree with Ron Paul's policies.
No they won't. Are you seriously that ignorant of human nature?
>>3826264
>>3826200
I'm willing to believe he can end the wars. But that's it. He can't change taxes, he can't legalize pot, he can't fix walstreet, ect ect. He can only do one thing in his long list of supposed magic fixes.

>>3826120
>he is beneficial to both the left and right on social issues
>he is divisive on social issues
I think you're a little confused there, buddy. The guy is the opposite of divisive. He has eaten out with Federal Reserve chairmen instead of acting like a belligerent retard like Perry and will have liberal democrats like Kucinich and Barney Frank because there are issues that he agrees with them on like Defense and social issues.

>>3826200

They recolored Obama's tie yellow to inflect the socialist allegations.

Clever propaganda.

>>3826334
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo

>>3826288
Explain why they won't

>>3826438
Democrats won't vote for his stuff because he's not a democrat. Republicans wont vote for his stuff because he's not a "real" republican. American politics isn't about voting for what's a good idea. It's about voting against everybody who isn't in YOUR party. Everything else is secondary.

Also the stupid rednecks who hear he has a different opinion than them about some stupid thing that doesn't matter like gay marriage will clamor for their congressmen to vote against him on everything.

You seem to have the idea that american politicians want to do what's best for america. That isn't even in the top 5 motivators for what to vote.

Ron Paul broke politics and needs to be nerfed.
Q: Do you believe in a law against liberal principle x?
Ron Paul's A: I do not believe it is up to the federal government to decide x.
This sounds libertarian, but conservatives know they can still illegalize x at the STATE level.

Meaning if you're pro-x, he sounds pro-x. If you're anti-x, he sounds anti-x.

Letting states decide is bad because it is divisive. Also, even if only one state legalizes x, people can visit that state to get x. Red states have gay people too, so it's just tyranny of the majority on a smaller scale.

'Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected."
The above quote isn't as bad when read in context, but still shows his true feelings.

>>3826476
What happens when the people learn that both parties are controlled by the same people.

>>3826530
It wont happen so it doesn't matter. If you hold up concrete, undeniable evidence in front of a majority of americans, you know what they'll do? They're say "I dont care" and go back to watching Ancient Aliens and Fox News. Then when election time comes around they'll cast their vote based on what party they consider themselves a member of and promptly forget about the whole "politics" thing.

>>3826526
>Red states have gay people too, so it's just tyranny of the majority on a smaller scale.

There are no gay people in Mississippi or Oklahoma or whatever. If a person is born gay, he tends to move to the big cities or whatever where gay culture is naturally based.

>>3826526
Nope.jpg
Letting states differ is what is constitutionally right. All powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states.

Paul is right that we've exceeded our constitutional authority with "implied powers".

Letting states decide fosters competition between states, which is a good thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIxd6ezDPOk

Fags, watch this and tell me whats wrong with gold standard.

>>3826546
It will happen eventually. In fact, it is already happening. The government can't sustain a lie forever.

>>3826583
It's not hard to maintain a lie when nobody cares.

Call me when the 2 party system fails. Protip: It won't in your lifetime.

>>3826599
People are starting to care. Their numbers are growing everyday.

It's coming soon.

>>3826551
Perhaps you are right. But in certain cases, like gay marriage, choice is obvious enough to be made for all states. Gay people and potheads in red states deserve freedom for the same reason people in any other state do.
The idea of states competing is interesting, but I don't think gay people should have to leave to feel free.
So I guess I believe that though tyranny of the majority is still backed by ron paul, at least he backs it on a smaller scale. Making him the least of all evils for the republicans.

>>3826629
No it's not, stop kidding yourself. You're as bad as singularity fags.

Wait, I bet you ARE a singularity "believer". Hahahaha oh god

what's it like living in fantasy land?

>>3826546
Now, I agree with you 100%, as an observant American and observer of human nature. But you cannot tell me right now that you have incontrovertible proof that both parties are controlled by one group. Lobbies? Most definitely. But an Illuminati-style secret society? It's like proving the existence of God.

So the wall street protests, the increased number of Ron Paul supporters, and people realizing that Obama is essentially a 3rd term for Dubya means nothing? Are you in denial, or do you just not want it to happen?

>>3826638
see
>>3826663

>>3826663
I think events will speak for themselves come the 2012 elections. I'll be voting for Ron Paul, and he'll be losing. Either obama will get a second term or a republican will win (not ron paul)

>>3825185
Sadly thi is what will happened, Kennedy was killed by people in the Military Industrial Complex.

>post pic of Ron Paul with no text
>guaranteed200replies.jpg

God damn it /sci/

>>3826663

It's not on TV, it didn't happen.

>>3826634

Yeah, you know what people can do in that scenario, or if they don't agree with state legislation?

Move.

>>3826145
>poverty is empirically reduced by free market capitalism

I lol'd. Cite or GTFO.