next »

[Capntastic]

Let's not forget that he thinks if you are molested in your workplace, it's your own fault for not seeking a better job.  If you are Ron Paul's aide and he kisses you full on the mouth while he shoves his icy, bloodless hands down your underwear, you only have yourself to blame.  You were asking for it, and should have seen it coming. Trying to bring a suit against him would break the Non-Aggression Principle, because all laws are inherently backed by the force of violence.

So his ethics system inherently denies that, as a civilized society, we are all interconnected, and owe each each other 'something', even if at the most basic level it's merely not to rape and kill one another.  The basis of that is some level of communal agreement on morality.  It's indefensible to say that anything that happens to someone is their own fault, and that they should be punished for it.  A system that says "I can do as much as I want to influence you in negative ways provided I don't cross an incredibly skewed line of what counts as 'aggression'" isn't liberty.  It's narcissistic, nihilistic anarchy.

If you want that sort of life, with unlimited 'freedoms', go to Somalia.  No government will enact the dreadful violence of law to stop you from raping and killing, or forming a coked up child army to kill anyone you want.

Even the benefits of capitalism require an implicit agreement of "these are the rules we're going to do business by, and if you break them, you agree to go to prison/pay restitution."

Edit:  I'm still amused by how much pleasure I'm deriving from a thread Antymattr created.

[BlueSweatshirt]

There is so much epicness concentrated in this thread right now it can be used as a future energy source. 

This right here is sustainability, folks.


[EDIT]
The only purpose of a peoples' government is to compensate for society's lack of personal responsibility and morals. Once you understand this basic truth you understand that the more the government "protects" you the more they are removing your freedoms. Personal responsibility and Freedom vs. No Responsibility and Artificial Fairness(Equity). You pick.
You can be molested in your workplace and it can be your problem, or it can be the government's problem. You can straighten up and gtfo, or you can bitch and whine to the government to compensate you and fix your terrible problems. You pick. Life is chaos. Safety is not guaranteed. Government's only purpose is to cover this truth up with roses and liquor.

Peace out 'muthaz.

[PompiPompi]

Let's not forget that he thinks if you are molested in your workplace, it's your own fault for not seeking a better job.  If you are Ron Paul's aide and he kisses you full on the mouth while he shoves his icy, bloodless hands down your underwear, you only have yourself to blame.  You were asking for it, and should have seen it coming. Trying to bring a suit against him would break the Non-Aggression Principle, because all laws are inherently backed by the force of violence.

So his ethics system inherently denies that, as a civilized society, we are all interconnected, and owe each each other 'something', even if at the most basic level it's merely not to rape and kill one another.  The basis of that is some level of communal agreement on morality.  It's indefensible to say that anything that happens to someone is their own fault, and that they should be punished for it.  A system that says "I can do as much as I want to influence you in negative ways provided I don't cross an incredibly skewed line of what counts as 'aggression'" isn't liberty.  It's narcissistic, nihilistic anarchy.

If you want that sort of life, with unlimited 'freedoms', go to Somalia.  No government will enact the dreadful violence of law to stop you from raping and killing, or forming a coked up child army to kill anyone you want.

Even the benefits of capitalism require an implicit agreement of "these are the rules we're going to do business by, and if you break them, you agree to go to prison/pay restitution."

Edit:  I'm still amused by how much pleasure I'm deriving from a thread Antymattr created.

lol, I would hate to continue this thread, but...
I think I actually read that, and I think that what he said is that a woman that has been harrased at work should quit and not wait for it to get worse(she can sue later or something). Which make sense, it's people like you who make fallacies and conclude that he said that it's woman's fault that she got raped at work because she chose the job. I am sure that's definitely not what he said.
However, we already agreed Ron Paul is the devil, so I am just being pedantic about what was actually said and how you stretch it.

[Capntastic]

He's saying that they should voluntarily give up the job they need to eat and live.  And yeah, if you 'sue' later, you'll win whatever damages, but you'll also be out of a job.  This means that if you are being molested your options are to put up with it or starve until you win a court case which could take years to settle, and might not end in your favor. 
 

That's pretty a shitty situation that is pretty much set up to blame the victim.

[PompiPompi]

He's saying that they should voluntarily give up the job they need to eat and live.  And yeah, if you 'sue' later, you'll win whatever damages, but you'll also be out of a job.  This means that if you are being molested your options are to put up with it or starve until you win a court case which could take years to settle, and might not end in your favor. 
 

That's pretty a shitty situation that is pretty much set up to blame the victim.

Regardless of this discussion, I think it's a good advice for women to quit their job before anything terrible happens. Nobody can really protect a woman in her workplace, cops don't protect us, in most cases you are alone when you face your attacker.
Most women can afford to quit their job and find another job instead. (Of course it's not ideal, but it's a better option than getting raped)
Starvation is bad regardless of this issue, you imply that people without jobs starve. So that's another issue that needs to be dealt with.

[Capntastic]

Most women can afford to quit their job and find another job instead. (Of course it's not ideal, but it's a better option than getting raped)

First, where are you getting 'most' from?  Over half of the United States is below the poverty line, we're at around 10% unemployment, and if you up and quit without notice you can lose your accumulated benefits. 

Further, even if everyone in the US could exist without pay, implicitly defending rape by arguing that the victim has the choice to leave is going completely against the non-aggression principle that Libertarians claim their ideology flows from.  Someone is doing harm to you, and putting you in a situation where you either tolerate it or lose your job.  It's coercion, and unlike the 'violence of law', it's coercion you did not agree to.

Saying that not getting raped is better than losing your job, and one should abandon their livelihood for it is arguable, but why should it be a choice?  If you're being molested by your employer, they should be punished, and your job shouldn't be at forfeit for someone going out of their way to shit on your rights.  If Ron Paul groped your ass and you didn't work for him, that is clearly his fault.  Why should it be different because you work for him?  Is it because you become his property?  Does your personhood vanish the moment you sign on to work for someone?  Can your personal rights, which he and other libertarians see as being inherent above all else including law, be bargained away?  Is that not wildly inconsistent?

Saying that "well you were wearing those clothes, you were on the bad side of town, you were asking for it" to shrug off someone getting raped is indefensible.  The only person responsible for the rape/molestation is the person who did it.

You don't see libertarians saying "well of course they were asking to be robbed, having such a big house with nice stuff in it." Rich people too have the choice to not be conspicuously wealthy, they can move to a secluded area, etc.  And yet their suffering is not passed off as being their own fault when misfortunate strikes.

Why are tangible property rights to not have their golden toaster stolen from their home ranked higher than the right to not get tongue-kissed by Ron Paul because you work for him?

[Nix]

My biggest problem with Ron Paul and most fiscal conservatives/classical liberals is that they seem to live in a fantasy world where there are opportunities and business which offer everything for everybody at competitive rates. If your health insurance is too expensive and doesn't cover you well enough, just go find another provider with better rates and better coverage! Those fantasy insurance providers don't exist. If you're at a job that you got after a year of unemployment and job searching, just quitting and finding a new job isn't so easy. The world is a lot smaller and more limited than Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich would like to believe.

[googoogjoob]

super joe you are my hero you have rescued this thread

[Capntastic]

No Nix, don't you see, if the government didn't have an unfair competitive advantage by giving poor people food to live off of and welfare to buy basic necessities, companies would be free to drive down prices, because history has clearly shown that companies will always hire as many people as possible and pay them decent wages and not charge as much as possible no matter what their operating costs are.  It's not at all like mechanization has led to a huge reduction of the number of jobs required, while the labor pool grows every year.  It's not at all like corporations speculate on the price of commodities like grain and oil, which are inelastic and people require them, driving up the prices as much as they can by creating an artificial shortage, just so they can make millions while shitting on everyone else.  It's not like history has shown us that this happens every single time you let it.  

I don't know where you're getting the idea that these people live in a fantasy world where all it takes is hard work to succeed, because the free market, the invisible handed god, will provide for all who sing its praises.

[Superb Joe]

There is the slight possiblity that he didn't really know what was going on in these newsletters, because not many people knew what newsletter are back then. I would think.

In 1996, he defended the news letters and made no claim he didn't know what was written in them. He heard the same criticisms but defended them: there is no possibility that he didn't know.

i like the fantasy idea that in the eyes of some, ron paul is still a viable candidate to take the highest office in the most powerful country in the world, to lead it and oversee the enormously complex political apparatus involved, because he doesn't actually hate blacks, he is simply blisteringly incompetent to the extent that for a period of decades he read nothing published in his name and had no control over it. they want a man who cannot control a newsletter, and is not curious as to why it is making him so much money, to run a country.

[Capntastic]

Yeah, as said above, even if you do buy the Ron Paul as Mr. Magoo conception people have of him, it in no way improves his validity as a legitimate candidate.

[PompiPompi]

Most women can afford to quit their job and find another job instead. (Of course it's not ideal, but it's a better option than getting raped)

First, where are you getting 'most' from?  Over half of the United States is below the poverty line, we're at around 10% unemployment, and if you up and quit without notice you can lose your accumulated benefits. 

Further, even if everyone in the US could exist without pay, implicitly defending rape by arguing that the victim has the choice to leave is going completely against the non-aggression principle that Libertarians claim their ideology flows from.  Someone is doing harm to you, and putting you in a situation where you either tolerate it or lose your job.  It's coercion, and unlike the 'violence of law', it's coercion you did not agree to.

Saying that not getting raped is better than losing your job, and one should abandon their livelihood for it is arguable, but why should it be a choice?  If you're being molested by your employer, they should be punished, and your job shouldn't be at forfeit for someone going out of their way to shit on your rights.  If Ron Paul groped your ass and you didn't work for him, that is clearly his fault.  Why should it be different because you work for him?  Is it because you become his property?  Does your personhood vanish the moment you sign on to work for someone?  Can your personal rights, which he and other libertarians see as being inherent above all else including law, be bargained away?  Is that not wildly inconsistent?

Saying that "well you were wearing those clothes, you were on the bad side of town, you were asking for it" to shrug off someone getting raped is indefensible.  The only person responsible for the rape/molestation is the person who did it.

You don't see libertarians saying "well of course they were asking to be robbed, having such a big house with nice stuff in it." Rich people too have the choice to not be conspicuously wealthy, they can move to a secluded area, etc.  And yet their suffering is not passed off as being their own fault when misfortunate strikes.

Why are tangible property rights to not have their golden toaster stolen from their home ranked higher than the right to not get tongue-kissed by Ron Paul because you work for him?

Oh god...
Well, all I am saying that given the options to get raped and to lose the job, I think women should pick losing the job. Regardless of whos rights got trampled, it's just common sense. It doesn't matter that her rights got trampled, it doesn't matter that "the attacker should be punished" I didn't say he shouldn't. (How does it help HER that her attacker will be punshied? Christ)
However, I think a lot of women choose to not quit their job eventhough there are bad signs. Maybe they are just in denial and confused and are not really sure what is going on. I think women SHOULD quit their job if there are bad signs, I am afraid some women don't do it in time.
You can't ensure all working environments will be 100% safe, I don't say you shouldn't strive for it, but we still don't have a robocop placed in every office.
And the safest way for a woman to prevent being assulted when there are bad signs is to quit the job. What else do you suggest her to do?

[PleasingFungus]

super joe, please marry me

(Also, Capntastic, http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=23703.msg685680#msg685680 was a fantastic post.)

[Gizmonicgamer]

However, I think a lot of women choose to not quit their job eventhough there are bad signs. Maybe they are just in denial and confused and are not really sure what is going on. I think women SHOULD quit their job if there are bad signs, I am afraid some women don't do it in time.

Some Women Cannot Afford To Quit Their Job

[PompiPompi]

My biggest problem with Ron Paul and most fiscal conservatives/classical liberals is that they seem to live in a fantasy world where there are opportunities and business which offer everything for everybody at competitive rates. If your health insurance is too expensive and doesn't cover you well enough, just go find another provider with better rates and better coverage! Those fantasy insurance providers don't exist. If you're at a job that you got after a year of unemployment and job searching, just quitting and finding a new job isn't so easy. The world is a lot smaller and more limited than Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich would like to believe.

My biggest problem with liberals is that they think they can make everyone in their country wealthy and still be competitive in the world market.
Which translates to, what do you prefer? Better average wealth(Capitalism)? Or Better minimum wealth(Liberal)?
The problem with liberals is that they are trying to "save everybody". You can't have 0% crime rate, you can't have 0% poverty. There are always going to be poor people. The question is, are going to run the country as if you can make everyone wealth and eradicate crime? Or are you going to run the country by looking at numbers and statistics and saying things like "Hmm, I am going to put resources to prevent rape, on account of murder. That will get an improvement of 0.5% less violent crimes. I am going to put resources into A, which will make more people poor and more people starve to death, but it will improve the economy in the long run".
I think liberals are not aware that bottom line, those are the kind of decisions people in the office face.
They deal with peoples lives ON AVERAGE, if you try to "save everyone" it's impossible.
I know it sound cold, and I want to have 0% crime and 0% poverty, but it's impossible and the next best thing you can do is to approximate and optimize.