He also asks for help finding a new toilet.
I am so glad posters on these forums washed their hands off this petty politician long before he was even elected or was a rising political star.
And I am so glad Justin Raimondo did the same too.
I am so glad posters on these forums washed their hands off this petty politician long before he was even elected or was a rising political star. And I am so glad Justin Raimondo did the same too.
Not sure what the big deal was. He was just making the point that he and other consumers shouldn't be forced to do what they don't want to do through taxation/penalties under the guise of "helping" them when it some instances it doesn't help, like low-power toilets which end up using more water, etc.- I mean I'm sure you already knew his point...so...??
Errr, I don't see wha the big deal is; his questions were great, if you ask me--he clearly made the point that the people in the administration are hypocritical and incoherent. They're pro-choice for human life, but they're not pro-choice for consumers right to choose what they want to put in their own homes.
Her response was incredibly telling as well; she resorted to appeal to popularity "this was a bipartisan bill...", then out and out suggested it didn't restrict consumer choice at all....but then more or less acknolwedged what Rand was saying when she (perhaps sarcastically) asked if he wanted help finding a toilet.
He showed her for the hypocrite she was....kinda pathetic how she couldn't really address what he was saying.
Resident Christian Anarcho-Capitalist.
I agree with Fox McCloud... his point was awesome. And her response did not even answer to what Rand said in the first place.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
I liked his point too. I have wondered if Rand is a closet-anarcho-capitalist. If so, he has chosen his political/strategical war-opinions quite badly...
Rand Paul just earned back a little of my respect.
^ Same. I think initially a lot of people are disappointed in how not as libertarian rand paul is compared to ron paul, but he's definitely better then the standard conservative.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Agree with Fox. It’s good to see at least the comments made and although I don't see any progress possible on our front in DC ... it’s still good to hear. As for how 'libertarian' ish is Rand vs Ron ... it's the same only constant squabble the entire Libertarian movement falls into every five second ... The movement trips over itself left and right as they fight more with each other over where someone falls in the political spectrum of Libertarianism than they do with trying to solidify behind a move or core issue that all probably agree on in principle.
Here is the New York Times take on this:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/rand-paul-blames-energy-department-for-faulty-toilets-among-other-things/
What would be a response to this posters objection?
"So, to clarify: democrats are hypocrites because they support a woman's right to choose abortion, but not Paul's right to choose a toilet. Does this mean that Rand Paul is pro choice for women, as well as toilets and lightbulbs?"
What would be a response to this posters objection? "So, to clarify: democrats are hypocrites because they support a woman's right to choose abortion, but not Paul's right to choose a toilet. Does this mean that Rand Paul is pro choice for women, as well as toilets and lightbulbs?"
I guess the answer is "yes". Democrats are hypocrites because they support abortion, but not a woman's right to choose a toilet. Duh.
I suppose the last sentence is some accusation of Paul being a hypocrite too. Like that somehow justifies the reverse position. That argument doesn't work though, because nobody thinks that toilets have souls.
EmperorNero:I suppose the last sentence is some accusation of Paul being a hypocrite too. Like that somehow justifies the reverse position. That argument doesn't work though, because nobody thinks that toilets have souls.
Either way, I agree... The answer is "yes." At least from my position. And I'm not sure I understand why that's so silly... Am I really that blind anymore?
Agreed. In complete concurrence.
People who are full of sh$%& debating over an item that is full of s·$%"
I have a feeling you didn't actually watch the video...
Anyway, that was pretty epic.
Rand paul reminds me of Reagan, he obviously knows far more than he is saying in order to be electable, I just hope he doesn't end up governing like Reagan too.
Trust them to get bogged in a discussion over the toilet rather than the philosophical point Rand is making.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I just saw this clip today and remembered the title of this thread. I didn't realize the context of the comment...and I certainly didn't realize the awesomeness of the dialogue...
The Pro Choice position on abortion is a great opportunity to exploit when arguing with progressives. People are either free to choose or they are not.
liberty student:The Pro Choice position on abortion is a great opportunity to exploit when arguing with progressives. People are either free to choose or they are not.
That setting up a tough turf to play on if you're a pro-life libertarian. It could easily go:
Progressive: Well, you're pro choice on everything else but not on the right to choose?
Libertarian: I'm pro individual liberty. You don't have the right to take the life another individual.
P: Why not?
L: It infringes on their rights.
P: ...Just like your pollution infringes on mine.
L: I'm glad you are taking rights seriously, indeed pollution is a problem when it is a infringement of ones rights, polluting someones property is a tort. You are on your way to being a libertarian...
Lets talk about whether a monopolist/bureacratist/predatory organisation that would claim to provide for sollutions to issues of pollution is really the best way to tackle them... hey ever considered anarchy?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
P: I suppose you would prefer some private means of rights protection, as well as adjudication and justice adminstration. So how exactly is a private entity preventing you from using that wasteful, polluting piece of technology different from a government doing so? The only difference I see would be your argument that the private entity would be infringing on your choices more efficiently.
L: yes the private entity would be infringing on my illegitimate choices to commit torts more efficiently. so going to change that P to an L now?
We need more role playing like this. It would probably really help people develop debate skills and a better understanding.
Very clever from Paul. I don't believe the toilets in his house don't work, but the choice thing was brilliant.
nirgrahamUK:L: yes the private entity would be infringing on my illegitimate choices to commit torts more efficiently. so going to change that P to an L now?
P: Why should I? You haven't convinced me of anything. The only thing you've done is legitimized the government's forcing you to use CFL's whether you like them or not. So perhaps I should ask you...gonna shut your yap about the Dept. of Energy restricting your choices now?
I was mulling this over in my head because, like y'all, I thought it was really clever. What a truly comitted liberal would say though is that child-rearing depends on all sorts of unquantifiable unaccessible things. It requires the parents' cooperation, dedication, etc. Only they can make this judgement, therefore abortion is okay.
However, with lightbulbs, there is an "objectively" right choice. There's an environmentally power-efficient lightbulb that gives off "enough" light and is cheap "enough". Of course this is actually how our regulatory agencies think.
The two scenarios are fundamentally the same. The subjectivity of the former is just weighed more heavily by the liberal tinkerer. You will have a difficult time highlighting the subjectivity of lightbulbs, because it appears to be very simple. Its an incredibly boring path to take.
We need more role playing like this. It would probably really help people develop debate skills and a better understanding.- Liberty Student
I'm a 10th level DailyKos troll. You want to enslave blacks and force children to work in factories 10 hours a day. You drool for the days when women were beaten and treated as the property of their husbands. You have no regard for the environment and are nothing but lackeys for corporate America.
>> Why should I? You haven't convinced me of anything. The only thing you've done is legitimized the government's forcing you to use CFL's whether you >>like them or not. So perhaps I should ask you...gonna shut your yap about the Dept. of Energy restricting your choices now?
I've convinced you that we are not worlds apart on issues of pollution; we agree that pollution can be a tort.
The issue of whether CFC *in general* constitute defacto pollution torts on particular people is one we havent even discussed...., so perhaps you are being too hasty with your conclusions.
ou have also completely avoided the challenge I suggested of performing comparative institutional analysis and have satisfied yourself with acknowledging that even stopped clocks are accurate twice a day and that a serial killer can perform acts of kindness.
I am disappoint (in your devils advocate character...)