Originally Posted by JMRouse
Originally Posted by Bhowie
This is really dumb.
Originally Posted by Lord-Barrington
It is, but then so is Ron Paul.
(Cue the retard Libertarians telling me that I just don't want to "hear the truth".)
Okay - so I'll take the bait as a token "libertarian" - although I still identify as a classical liberal. And that use of the word "retard" is kind of offensive to humanity, so please be more sensitive in the future.
Now - Ron Paul is barely a libertarian and is certainly not a Libertarian (he's running as a Republican). I'd hardly call everything he says "truth" but I'd like to break down a few things on that poster...
1> The name of Facebook page is intentionally misleading and disingenuous. In general, freer markets do NOT equal More corporate power, they equal less (that does not mean that just randomly deregulating everything tomorrow from the current state would not mean more corporate power, but it's a bit of an overstatement to say the least).
2> I don't know of ANY part of Ron Paul's platform that would undermine Gay, Women's, or civil rights. The "allow discrimination" is a bit of a stretch, derived from a fundamental belief that private property rights should allow an owner some measure control over how that property is used. Thus, if I have a store or club and choose to accept only a small portion of available customers, that's my loss. I personally would never discriminate on whom I do business with, but that does not make it unreasonable to question where the fundamental right is derived for the government to force me to do business with anyone.
3> Promote less taxes for the top 1% does not mean he wants to maintain or increase the tax levels for anyone else. That's just pandering.
4> Give no amnesty or immigrant rights - neither the Dem or Repub bases want these things either... only real libertarians and classical liberals believe in open borders
5> Eliminate US and Foreign disaster aid - again - I think this is taking a philosophical statement and assuming it would immediately turn into policy. But the question is, does it make more sense for people who care about giving aid to donate to charities that can directly help, or for the Government to forcefully take money from people to provide that aid? Perhaps some citizens believe the atrocities in Darfur are a better use of money than victims of an earthquake in Haiti. In our current model, the Government is assigning those priorities for you and spending your money on it. That's really not the constitutional charter of our Government.
6> These people claim to be anti-monopoly but then don't understand how privatizing education could actually improve it if implemented correctly. Primary education is one of the biggest monopolies in this country. And Government regulation, while not wholly insidious tends to be heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists and tends to favor the regulated more than the general populations by creating small cartels, etc.