Metal Reviews

I disagree with shit like this:

Opposes fair trade:


I really would like him more if the way he advocated for things to be adjudicated at the state level rather than the federal was honest. More often than not, it is a way of introducing private organizations working for profits into areas which shouldn't seek profits but instead should be helping individuals and that's the problem. Nursing homes, for example, taking care of the elderly should not be a way to make money but instead should act as a zero sum and instead should focus it's resources on care rather than a surplus value to be made off of their patients.

Of course you disagree with property rights; you're a Marxist.

Is this a joke?

Actually Paul's "no" is in direct accordance with free trade, while the other's "yes" are not. I think you are confused; how is doing business based solely on business interests (not social justice) against free trade?

As for the rest, he bases his policy on whether or not something is constitutional. "Helping individals", or charity, is not something that was ever meant to be a governmental function. It is a personal endeavor, and if soemone wishes to dedicate their time and money doing so, more power to them. But the gov has no place in such matters.
You need to get a little less ignorant of what this country is founded on.

Even not as a Marxist, to claim that property rights are the foundation for all rights is fucking stupid. The right to have rights is founded in being in a community of people which recognize the rights one claims to have. Without that, rights means shit, i.e., human rights for the Jew in the Holocaust. Human rights and property rights sure as fuck didn't save their asses. Thanks for taking Arendt 101.

I said Paul was opposed to fair trade, in accordance with free trade. I know how to read. You should try it. Free trade isn't how we solve America's trade deficit, ignoring the social injustices it causes.

Our Constitution was created in the context where the majority of people were excluded from the political process. Hence our political process has changed since then. What our country was founded on, or what the foundations have resulted in, i.e., radical inequality, is the reason an intervention has to be made on the behalf of individuals. The fact that our constitution excluded these people entirely from the drafting of the Constitution makes the constitution not really valid when it comes to addressing these concerns. I know what the country was founded on and I can see what it has resulted in and why it isn't a perfect doctrine. A contradiction lies in the document that upholding the document will lead to the document being radically upturned. Some people said the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional yet to uphold it as unconstitutional regardless of whether it is or not would have resulted in social unrest which could've brought the country down if given a chance. The same with the inequalities under capitalism. If the social welfare system wasn't created under FDR, those on the lowest rungs, the auto workers in Flint, Michigan, for example, could have taken to the streets and overturned the constitution, in the same way they held up in the factories for weeks, fighting off police forces as they were on strike.

Using the Nazis as a line of argument is pretty weak. Yes, the Nazis took no notice of human or property or civil rights, this does not mean that those are all worthless.

You're also ignoring the thought process behind the arguments. The precise reason he wants nursing homes etc to be privatised is because profit is a purer motive than some politically-introduced acceptable level of standards that will lead to corner-cutting to achieve. Asking Paul to go against something as mainstream as privatisation is a bit much...

Of course it's stupid to you, you think hat property should be redistributed according to some bullshit failure of an ideology.
what does the jewish holocaust have to do with anything?
Earth to trapt: we are talking about the US constitution, not nazi Germany.

Like it or not, private property rights are a pillar on which our country is founded upon:

http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril22.htm

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/201 ... ty-rights/


The Fifth amendment is clear on this, as well.



I know how to read, thank you.
What does a foreign nations ideas of justice have to do with free trade? When did "solving America's trade deficit" even slip into the topic?

You said he opposed free trade and posted a question regarding human rights... are you stoned?

The rest of your diatribe is just more of the same leftist / statist parrot act and really just proves you are completely clueless on what the founding fathers had in mind. Really, i'm not going to waste my time debating something that is so glaringly ill informed that it is obvious for all to see.

There are countless other examples of ignoring human rights and these people weren't being mistreated because of their lack of property rights or for the fact that property rights were eliminated in a society, i.e., human rights violations have happened outside of the USSR. There really is not much of a connection between human rights and property rights besides the questionable notion that property rights are a human rights.

Not asking him to go against it. He's just wrong that it's great.

Again, demonstrate how he is wrong.

Oh and why are you bringing up arguments against property rights with examples of governments that didn't allow property rights to everyone to begin with?
What does nazi germany, or the USSR have to do with the US Constitution?

I honestly think you are just that thick.

The violation of human rights can't be tied down to a single basis, however. No, Jews weren't persecuted because they lacked rights, but the systematic eradication of those rights by the Nazis allowed them to be dehumanised to the extent where they could be rounded up and shipped away to death camps. Ditto the Soviets - their removal of rights gave them the control, not the people.



Fair enough, I suppose. BTW I'm actually surprised at this line of argument, I'd have thought RP's positions on gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion etc would have you in more of a lather than privatisation, especially considering he's a libertarian and privatisation goes with the territory.

Thats the point, though. Those people either didn't have those rights, or were stripped of them, so as an argument against private property rights it's irrelevant.

That's ridiculous property rights built by volition of a "community"?

So unless I don't want to exercise my RIGHT to use my money ergo my property, to build my house somewhere in the mountains I need my town's permission? Last time I checked I didn't need my neighborhood to acknowledge my right to build a home, and what is this nonsense about Dr.Paul being for free trade? Are you clinically retarded or deliberately avoiding videos where he's stated he wants to bring jobs back here? If he was truly in favor of corporate welfare don't you think he would've voted for NAFTA, GAT, and the elimination of Glass Steagall? He didn't and he's always been in favor of an economy that doesn't cheat the individual or the other country. Want to give me your college degree, obviously you aren't putting it to good use.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that trapt is either a troll or just plain fucking stupid.
I think I am just about done wasting my time on his emotionally juvenile statist nonsense; the initial enjoyment I got from humbling him on the issues has long worn off, so at this point it is just tiresome.

Glad to see that not all of our youth are ideological drones, though.

Fair enough. I'm still not convinced in any way that property rights are fundamental to human rights as Paul claimed.



Fair enough, I suppose. BTW I'm actually surprised at this line of argument, I'd have thought RP's positions on gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion etc would have you in more of a lather than privatisation, especially considering he's a libertarian and privatisation goes with the territory.[/quote]He says all marriage issues should be done at the state level, no? He is opposed to redefining marriage which is the same argument V said in the other thread so why beat that dead horse. A conservative opposed to the right to have an abortion. Not surprised. He views fetuses as having the right to liberty rather than the mother having the right to her own body. Kinda dumb but not surprised.

My use of the word community isn't as reductive as to something like a town but an entire public sphere rather so something like the West or America or Europe.

He opposes fair trade was my initial point. That is all. I really don't see NAFTA as the problem of America but the deregulation of Reagan which he would be fine with. He mystifies the situation by acting like free trade is a problem. Trading into deficits is stupid but we've always tariffed imports and subsidized exports. NAFTA is an issue of fair trade insofar as it hasn't fucked us but Mexico, e.g., rebel farmers in Chiapas. Fair trade which he opposes.

And I've just realized V doesn't know what fair trade is. Viewing property rights as the foundation for all other rights radically shapes one's other views and takes in a very conservative way.

Of course he is against basing business being conducted on a countrys human rights record; he is for FREE trade.

And we are not supposed to get entangled in other nations affairs; do business, fine, but how other nations governments operate is no concern of ours.

You advocate fair trade, yet at the same time say you are for "less government than most conservatives"?
GTFO.

Stop wasting everybodies time with half-baked bullshit.

i don't know why you think fair trade requires more government. I'm sitting at a local coffee shop which imports coffee beans at above fair trade prices and who are conscious of where they get them from.

Of course you care more that the Mexicans are being harmed more by Nafta than your fellow Americans. If the idea was implemented it would make importing less expensive for corporations, meaning our port cities would be less desirable, but this is no issue for you as "Fair trade" inevitably means fucking our standard of life so that the Mexican workers can have our jobs and those fucking Zapatists can stop rallying with those stupid black masks. Let me put this in a way you may at least partially understand, trade at least in its most base form should be profitable for both parties. When we have a piece of legislation that only boosts one side of the fence, i,e the megacorporations that stand to profit and the foreign countries that get less fucked (they do get a labor pool) after all, then you're shooting your own collectivist feel good logic in the foot. You would essentially ship our jobs over to Mexico, and yet this doesn't strike me as alien of a concept, who told you this would be a good thing?

As for property rights, it is a fundamental right for all human beings. What extends from the individual logically follows for everything else, if I or you for that matter does not have the ability to exercise the simple right to buy a house, speak your mind, or do anything for that matter- it simply goes against the grain of existing. Thereby, arguing for an individual to be subservient to some unrelated mass is highly illogical, as it only leads to restricting those basic freedoms and will inevitably lead to the very breakdown of your precious collective.

I was under the impression that it was a government mandate; I stand corrected on that. It is still an intervention by various organizations.

There seems to be some legitimate criticism of it, though.
One of those criticisms is that it encourages producers to overproduce, which in turn results in excess product, which in turn leads to lower prices in the non-fair trade sector. Which, of course is bad for non-fair trade producers.

But, people are free to buy whatever goods they want for whatever reasons they want, so whatever.

My fellow Americans were fucked by Reagan, you asshole in the 80s. NAFTA wasn't enacted until 1994. All NAFTA did was fuck over local farms in Mexico forcing those workers to migrate here and enabling corporations to use labor from Mexico on the cheap, something which Reagan already opened the door for. The Reagan, the conservative man's dalai lama is who shipped jobs oversea,.

Those aren't equivalent rights. Not owning a house and living on a collective farm does not radically harm my freedom in the same way that not being able to speak my mind does. QED, no?

I'm unsure why fair trade would encourage over-production in ways that free trade doesn't. And non-fair trade producers, i.e., free trade producers, value competition so much shouldn't they be forced to compete with fair trade products. If fair trade can make a better product then fuck free trade.

Fair trade is just that. People buying socially conscious goods.

My bit about Paul's comments are that why should we buy jeans from China if they're being made by children when we could have those jobs here. Paul thinks we should continue getting them from China because they're cheap is how I read that quote from earlier. Yes, the question was phrased at a federal level but the federal level is the only way individuals could control what companies like Levi does, in my opinion. Yes, people could just not buy Levi jeans but what if every jeans company used children labor, the people would have no say in the products they have to choose from and hence govt serves a purpose to step in.

Yeah, conservatives really care about cutting the debt and reducing the size of government.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/15/30 ... grant.html


Honestly, I just find the program fucking stupid. If a couple can't get their act together enough to decide on their own that they want to get married or afford the $90 certificate maybe they aren't ready to be married. Why use federal money for a stupid program while also losing out on the revenue which the licenses provide?

On the other and, if a couple can't get their act together enough to have a decent income, the savings and assets necessary to purchase a home, maybe they aren't ready for home ownership.