scottfrost:

Hitler

Paul -- Hitler was a National Socialist. How much more left can he be?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

The barrel of a gun, that is.

But, seriously, for a moment now--It's the same disregard for history--Hitler never lied, right? So trust the party label rather his history of streetfighting against leftists--that enables John Locke to be portrayed as a libertarian, and Ron Paul to be washed clean of his decades of consorting with the racist and nativist far right.

How does one become a "straight-shooter" by ignoring so much history? And if you can, then why is Ron Paul the straight-shooter, and not George Bush?

Don't forget, there was a time when Bush's "honesty" was far and away his most-cited trait.

Anonymous:

Pauliacs ain't no Deaniacs

They are frigging maniacs.

Maine. Vermont. Only one small state in between.

scottfrost:

Social contracts

The only "social contract" that a truly free society needs is one where every individual acknowledges the equal rights of other individuals.

Rights do not confer obligations on others. Certain posters' notions of a "social contract" necessarily would coercively enforce some people's views of "social justice" (usually consisting of redistribution of wealth) on others. I did not sign that contract.

Social contract theory has a very well-documented history. Libertarians love to portray themselves as TSOLs--True Sons of Locke, but nothing could be further from the truth. Locke's social contract theory was based on the premise that in a state of nature all rights were insecure, because of the threat of violence from any direction. The social contract restricted violence, and thus secured rights. In Locke's argument, it was necessary to distinguish between rights that could be surrendered for this purpose vs. rights that could not--those that we inalienable.

Locke's whole purpose in all of this was not to protect the individual from the state. Rather, it was to justify the state on the basis of the individual, as opposed to the traditional top-down theocratic justifications of Divine Right doctrine. In Locke's view, the state has an extremely important role in promoting human liberty.

scottfrost actually prefers the pre-Lockian state--one that exists primarily to keep the rabble in their place, not one that recognizes a fundamental right to a basic level of humane existence. After all, in the state of nature it is precisely such a lack of fundamental security--including folks starving to death--that makes the whole (non-)system so lacking in the freedom it purportedly abounds in.

p.s. Since you didn't sign the contract, you are free to leave. Passage to Mars, however, is not free.

Sorry about that.

scottfrost:

General welfare again

The phrase "...promote the general wlefare..." comes in the preamble of the Constitution, not the body of the document where the very limited powers of the federal government are meticulously spelled out.

The Founders were minimalists. They did not carefully write out that document, which was clearly intended to constrain the size and scope of the federal government, only to have a phrase like '"promote the general welfare" be used to erase everything they carefully enumerated in the rest of the document. That is self-evidently nonsensical.

THE-ROC:

Ron Paul on racism

i guess they like his views on illegal immegration, because he has always been explicit on racism:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

This is how the right simultaneous "proves" that Hitler was a man of the left, and "proves" that the civil rights movement was racist.

Nice!

By their touts yea shall know them!

By all means, don't rush to judgement. But consider that there are two very different frames for approaching this, and that you ought to consider, as you examine the evidence, which of them gives a more credible overall picture.

The one frame is that which you articulated, about politicians and other public figures speaking to all manner of groups--which certainly is true, but of questionable relevance when the balance of groups spoken to is heavily skewed in some way. The other frame is that of how, historically, rigtwing populist leaders have functioned over time, stirring up nativist passions with one hand, and waving the flag of unity and national ideals with the other, spending years in the wilderness with openly bigotted groups, and then legitimizing them and/or their views, when their time in sun comes around.

Facts which constitute important, and quite legitimate caveats in the first frame--such as disavowing authorship, statements being a long time ago, questions about context, etc.--are quite commonplace dodges viewed through the second frame.

I'm not going to say anything more to try to convince you now. I trust you'll look into this seriously, and would rather have you convinced by your own investigation and thought processes. It doesn't mean I might not argue with you after you've done that. But it will be more productive for both of us once you've had a chance to dig deeper and come to some conclusions for yourself.

Anonymous:

@Paul Rosenberg

This whole thing is nothing but a big ol' "Conspiracy", ain't it?

Put your tinfoil hat back on.

Was 9/11 an inside job as well?

You sound loonier than a "9/11 Truther" with your TLDR conspiratorial rambling.

Actually, I'm someone who has weighed in various times against the "9/11 Truth Movement," and who has written critiques of conspiricism for years now. Paul, OTOH, simply wallows in conspiricist BS.

It's hardly conspiricism to point out who the conspiricists are, and what they've been saying for years and years and years.