[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yeah I Know, what a waste. When he could have been delivering babies.[/quote]
Again, as I said earlier, we will agree to disagree.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yeah I Know, what a waste. When he could have been delivering babies.[/quote]
Again, as I said earlier, we will agree to disagree.[/quote]
Not necessarily.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
As I’ve said in the past, it isn’t necessarily about either getting elected or “having his day in the sun” but rather spreading the message of liberty. Dr. Paul has simply chosen the vehicle of his congressional office as well as a couple of presidential campaigns for this purpose.[/quote]
“To me the question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing. . .appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing? It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstance, and a complete answer to the question, In what cases is liberty good and in what is it bad? would involve not merely a universal history of mankind, but a complete
solution of the problems which such a history would offer. I do not believe that the state of our knowledge is such as to enable us to enunciate any â??very simple principle as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control.â?? We must proceed in a far more cautious way, and confine ourselves to such remarks as
experience suggests about the advantages and disadvantages of compulsion and liberty respectively in particular cases.” -James Fitzjames Stephen
If Ron Paul was interested in “liberty” in any meaningful sense, he’d only be interested in the good kind. But alas, like other “libertarians”, he confuses Means with Ends and somehow has convinced himself - and his glassy-eyed, navel-gazing followers - that Utopia is just on the other side.
He better served the world birthing babies. The only thing his “platform” has done is make Social Democracy look palatable.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
As I’ve said in the past, it isn’t necessarily about either getting elected or “having his day in the sun” but rather spreading the message of liberty. Dr. Paul has simply chosen the vehicle of his congressional office as well as a couple of presidential campaigns for this purpose.[/quote]
“To me the question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing. . .appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing? It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstance, and a complete answer to the question, In what cases is liberty good and in what is it bad? would involve not merely a universal history of mankind, but a complete
solution of the problems which such a history would offer. I do not believe that the state of our knowledge is such as to enable us to enunciate any â??very simple principle as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control.â?? We must proceed in a far more cautious way, and confine ourselves to such remarks as
experience suggests about the advantages and disadvantages of compulsion and liberty respectively in particular cases.” -James Fitzjames Stephen
If Ron Paul was interested in “liberty” in any meaningful sense, he’d only be interested in the good kind. But alas, like other “libertarians”, he confuses Means with Ends and somehow has convinced himself - and his glassy-eyed, navel-gazing followers - that Utopia is just on the other side.
He better served the world birthing babies. The only thing his “platform” has done is make Social Democracy look palatable.[/quote]
Oh please…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
As I’ve said in the past, it isn’t necessarily about either getting elected or “having his day in the sun” but rather spreading the message of liberty. Dr. Paul has simply chosen the vehicle of his congressional office as well as a couple of presidential campaigns for this purpose.[/quote]
“To me the question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing. . .appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing? It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstance, and a complete answer to the question, In what cases is liberty good and in what is it bad? would involve not merely a universal history of mankind, but a complete
solution of the problems which such a history would offer. I do not believe that the state of our knowledge is such as to enable us to enunciate any â??very simple principle as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control.â?? We must proceed in a far more cautious way, and confine ourselves to such remarks as
experience suggests about the advantages and disadvantages of compulsion and liberty respectively in particular cases.” -James Fitzjames Stephen
If Ron Paul was interested in “liberty” in any meaningful sense, he’d only be interested in the good kind. But alas, like other “libertarians”, he confuses Means with Ends and somehow has convinced himself - and his glassy-eyed, navel-gazing followers - that Utopia is just on the other side.
He better served the world birthing babies. The only thing his “platform” has done is make Social Democracy look palatable.[/quote]
Well said.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
As I’ve said in the past, it isn’t necessarily about either getting elected or “having his day in the sun” but rather spreading the message of liberty. Dr. Paul has simply chosen the vehicle of his congressional office as well as a couple of presidential campaigns for this purpose.[/quote]
“To me the question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing. . .appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing? It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstance, and a complete answer to the question, In what cases is liberty good and in what is it bad? would involve not merely a universal history of mankind, but a complete
solution of the problems which such a history would offer. I do not believe that the state of our knowledge is such as to enable us to enunciate any �¢??very simple principle as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control.�¢?? We must proceed in a far more cautious way, and confine ourselves to such remarks as
experience suggests about the advantages and disadvantages of compulsion and liberty respectively in particular cases.” -James Fitzjames Stephen
If Ron Paul was interested in “liberty” in any meaningful sense, he’d only be interested in the good kind. But alas, like other “libertarians”, he confuses Means with Ends and somehow has convinced himself - and his glassy-eyed, navel-gazing followers - that Utopia is just on the other side.
He better served the world birthing babies. The only thing his “platform” has done is make Social Democracy look palatable.[/quote]
Well said.[/quote]
Oh please…
TB, sometimes I think it’s too bad that you are so petulant and contentious, as there are times I’m almost inclined to agree and complement your arguments. But have no fear, I realize the bile will continue to spew and don’t bother to take you for anything but a cantankerous internet entity.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
TB, sometimes I think it’s too bad that you are so petulant and contentious, as there are times I’m almost inclined to agree and complement your arguments. But have no fear, I realize the bile will continue to spew and don’t bother to take you for anything but a cantankerous internet entity. [/quote]
See you have been digging in some books lately.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
TB, sometimes I think it’s too bad that you are so petulant and contentious, as there are times I’m almost inclined to agree and complement your arguments. But have no fear, I realize the bile will continue to spew and don’t bother to take you for anything but a cantankerous internet entity. [/quote]
I’m not petulent, I’m grumpy and impatient with particularly with what I consider really, really idiotic, sloppy and dangerous thinking, and I have no problem telling the source of thinking what I think.
And, if you’ll read closely, if my responses seem prickly, it’s usually because someone other than me poisons the water first.
That said, rest assured I’ll lose exactly zero sleep tonight because you choose not to “bother to take you for anything but a cantankerous internet entity” - I’ve tried to enagage you substantively on a number of topics, and you simply flake out. As such, I suppose it’s better to be a “cantankerous internet entity” as opposed to a non-entity, but I digress.