I don't want to say what I think yet, as I do not want to give any predispositions, but I would love to hear the specific reasons why you like and/or dislike Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. Given the nature of the forum, I just want to list some positives about Romney and Santorum to balance things out.
Romney
1. Reduce income tax rate from 35 to 25 percents
2. 20% cap on spending of the GDP
3. Lower Regulations
4. He says he wants to elimate Obamacare and instead give the money to the states
5. Reduce taxes on middle class savings and investments
6. Eliminate taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains for anyone making less than $200,000 a year
7. Believes that cutting taxes and reducing regulations, not stimulus, is the key to economic growth
Santorum
1. Cut 5 trillion in ferderal spending over 5 years
2. He speaks about elimating government waste and improving efficiency
3. Repeal and Replace ObamaCare with market based healthcare
4. 18% cap on spending of the GDP
5. Eliminate all energy subsidies and most agriculture subsidies within four years
6. Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within five years
7. Eliminate funding for implementation of Dodd/Frank regulatory burdens
I assume this is more of an honest curiousity thing, but to be honest it's kind of a useless exercise...especially around here. The vast majority of people here know good and well this is all nonsense, and there's nothing really good about either of these men in terms of why they should get someone's vote...especially when Ron Paul is in the race.
Notice how you asked what people liked about them, and then proceeeded to list policy stances, and things they've "said they would do."
I remember reading John Stuart Mill a while back. He says that in situation were there is no opposition it is necessary to create one, or our foundation risks cracking. I have my opinion, but I'll play devils advocate, so I challenge you to give me specifics. (Challenge in a friendly way)
Also Mr. James, you said I gave a list of things they would do, but you support Ron Paul for what he would do. Therefore your basing your accusation upon theory. If you want to call them liers, tell me when did they lie? Also lets give an alternate scenario. Lets say they are not liers.
Santorum voted for debt ceiling increases, Romney instituted a mandate. Nuff said.
This is a forum of people who have political philosophies that fall into most likely less than 1% of the population, and you think we don't see opposition? You think we can get by just existing in a bubble of people who agree and never have to encounter or deal with any opposing ideology? Seriously?
Again, you didn't give any specifics about what you liked about these slimeballs...all you did was list crap they've claimed they would like to do. I don't exactly consider "I like him because 'he speaks about elimating government waste and improving efficiency'" a very intellectually sound reasoning. I mean really. You don't say. Well break out the tickertape and start the parade, a politician talked about eliminating government waste.
I guess this means you like...every politician who's ever lived.
You want specifics? (even though the above example you gave is kind of the exact opposite of that)...
Mitt Romney [former governor who was the first to enforce essentially an Obamacare healthcare system on the people of his state...a program Obama said was a big inspiration for him in his own plan...something that Romney praised Obama for]...says "he wants to elimate Obamacare and instead give the money to the states".
Yeah I'm convinced.
Mitt Romney, a corporate insider who gets more money from billionaires than Barack Obama. The guy whose top campaign contributors are Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley. This guy. You like him because he says stuff that you like the sound of. I'd say that pretty much explains the situation we're in.
Santorum. Santorum. Mr. "They don't hate us because of anything we've done, they hate us because we're free and prosperous, imposing our values on each other is what America's about". He voted to double the size of the Dept. of Ed, he voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs to senior citizens (with no way to pay for it, of course), and he votes in favor of foreign aid. See, what people do tends to matter a little more to me than what they say.
But if you want to go on what people say, let's hear what Rick Santorum has to say about homosexuals. Let's hear what he has to say about starting wars and forcefully injecting American "goodness" at the point of a gun. (You know, George Carlin made a very perspicacious point once about this...mentioning how all the bullets and the bombs are shaped like dicks, and that this is a pseudo-psychological way of projecting yourself into other people's affairs. Listen to what he calls it.)
And finally, as an aside, I already created a thread (quite some time ago) in fact that may already provide the kind of answers you're looking for...
For anyone who still needs convincing against other candidates
commonsenselako:Also Mr. James, you said I gave a list of things they would do
False. Go up and read what I wrote again. It's right there.
You sound angry John. I never said I liked them. I am a Ron Paul supporter and am looking for irrefutable evidence against them, so I can spread it to the masses. Plus I think this is a heathy exercise. I'm doing research now to find Romney's and Santorum's responses to yours and Wheylous's claims.
Have fun with that. I'm sure you'll get a lot of great gems.
The mainstream of American politics constitutes a "challenge" to Austrian economics and libertarian theory like Bill O'Reilly would constitute a challenge to Fedor Emilianenko in the Octagon.
I agree we need to be challenged and I think left-libertarians provide an excellent source of substantive, challenging intellectual argument. If nothing else, they tend to put a more human face on opposition to the status quo than the more dispassionate (and sometimes detached) analysis of Rothbard, et. al.
Clayton -
god I love Fedor.
I'm still reading on the 8 debt ceiling increases (alot of reading) by Santorum. Also I'm reading about Romney's mandate and was looking into Romney's claim that it has provided more beneift then harm. I just wanted to say I love Fedor also.
Yeah, I mean, if you want to set their records side-by-side, it's not even a competition. Did Romney or Santorum predict the economic collapse? Ehhh, no. Have Romney or Santorum been elected 11 times to anything let alone maintain a consistent, principled position informed by careful study of history, economics and politics? Nope. Let's see how many tax raises each candidate has supported... Ron Paul: 0... Romney: not 0, so who cares... Santorum: not 0, so who cares. How many overseas bases does each candidate promise to close upon election? Ron Paul: As many as possible, ideally all of them... Romney: whatever's politically convenient, aka ZERO, Santorum "Bomb them all, let God sort them out": probably wants to build more. We can go on and on.
Fedor v. O'Reilly.
I found one interesting argument for Romney's healthcare mandate so far. His arguments is that if people don't have health care and can afford it then they shouldn't be a burden upon others. It is unrealistic that we will elimate healthcare all together and Hayek argued that everyone should be given the very minimum needed for survival. Friedman also argued for a negative income tax. I know mandate has bad connotations, but if viewed as just a tax then would you say in a prosperous country this would be a reasonable proposition?
Clayton:Santorum "Bomb them all, let God sort them out"
I laughed out loud.
In response to Clayton, I can't really come up with a good argument against Ron Paul's foriegn policy, but I would like to ask what you think the immediate ramifications of scaling down our bases around the world would be? If lets say somehow Syria and Iran can send buckets of money to Hezbollah and Israel is attacked, what would you say is the appropriate action? If Israel is losing do we allow their defeat? and if we do intervene then wouldn't the problem not have been solved by our absence?
commonsenselako:His arguments is that if people don't have health care and can afford it then they shouldn't be a burden upon others.
So we should force people to buy something, whether they want it or not. Yes, this makes such good sense. Very reasonable and lucid. Quite brilliant actually. And not unconstitutional or immoral at all.
and Hayek argued that everyone should be given the very minimum needed for survival. Friedman also argued for a negative income tax.
So we're appealing to authority now? If we're going to go that far you should at least pick actual strict libertarians. Hayek was pretty easily an ordoliberal, and Friedman...well, Friedman was just wrong on a number of things. (It wasn't until shortly before he died (at age 94) before he finally conceded the Fed should be abolished.)
I know mandate has bad connotations, but if viewed as just a tax then would you say in a prosperous country this would be a reasonable proposition?
You mean like "hey, let's have a bigger more burdensome government...we can afford it!"? Yeah, great plan. First of all, we can't afford it. We have unfunded liabilities that overshadow global GDP.
But let's also not forget you're talking about an essential government takeover of the healthcare industry. It's bad enough as it is, and Obamacare makes it ten times worse in just the form it's written...but on top of that is a first step in the direction of a single-payer (i.e. government-controlled-run) system. They said so.
In response to the mandate being unconstitutional because it is forced then you could argue so are taxes in general. A mandate gives you something in return immediately, as oppose to taxes. Granted you can't force to people to buy toasters, but health care, education and security do those sound resonable?
I disagree with Friedman on some things, but on most things I believe he is correct. Also an argument doesn't have to be libertarian to be viable.
You can argue that health care is a necessary evil and that spending cuts can be found else where. Romney says he is for putting a cap on GDP. Lets pretend he is honest.
commonsenselako:If lets say somehow Syria and Iran can send buckets of money to Hezbollah and Israel is attacked, what would you say is the appropriate action? If Israel is losing do we allow their defeat? and if we do intervene then wouldn't the problem not have been solved by our absence?
Israelis can take care of themselves. Anyone who claims they can't, and need our help, and our permission to take a piss, is not only insulting their ability, but also the competence of their own intelligence officials.
It's a semi-microcosm for the whole socialist mindset of "we know what's best for you. We'll take care of you."
When is military intervention appropriate then? If Germany attacks the UK do we sit on our hands? Do we act to prevent genocide or do we just act when we are attacked? Is there no such thing as taking preventive action? If all it takes is to blow up one bridge to save a village of people who are not of this country, then do we stand aside because of our morals?
If lets say somehow Syria and Iran can send buckets of money to Hezbollah and Israel is attacked, what would you say is the appropriate action? If Israel is losing do we allow their defeat? and if we do intervene then wouldn't the problem not have been solved by our absence?
I wonder if Panamanians worry about what Syria and Iran do. I wonder if Singaporeans worry about what Syria and Iran do. Since when did Americans start thinking of themselves as grandmasters sitting at the Grand Chessboard of Global Politics?? If we defend our borders and observe the civil and economic rights of Americans like we used to do back when we were actually prosperous, we can be prosperous again and there's not a damn thing Syria, Iran or even China can do about it.
That was the whole idea of classic American non-interventionism: Leave the Old World imperialism to the Old Worlders, let them squabble over the ashes of European colonial "glory" while we harness the power of capitalism - freedom - to build prosperity based on productivity instead of theft and machination. The Old World is a zero-sum world. The more you take from others, the richer you are. America was supposed to be built on a new idea: that productivity, not politics, is the true basis of wealth, propserity and invidiual freedom. We lived it for nigh on a century (with the exception of the blackest mark on our history, the North-South War) but we were eventually defeated and shackled back into the Old World system by the Federal Reserve.
With the power to print money, the political means has become the most enriching line of activity and like a big magnet it has sucked out all the intelligence and dilligence of our once-great nation. Our brightest individuals go into "the public sector" where they perform some task that contributes to more deeply enslaving the American public. The producers are punished with ever higher taxes and every shrinking buying power with the dollars that, when spent, are worth half what they were worth when they were paid. Meanwhile, police are one of the fastest growing population of millionaires in America. The average income of a Federal worker in Washington, DC is more than twice the national average household income.
It's time to end the insanity. Who gives a shit what people do in Syria or Iran or Timbuktu. As long as we defend our borders and don't start shit with other countries, it doesn't matter.
(Its like looking in mirror talking to guys sometimes)
Nice answer Clayton, but my question still stands. Do we prevent genocide, do we have zero alliances and are there times when it is appropriate to take preventive action?
commonsenselako:In response to the mandate being unconstitutional because it is forced then you could argue so are taxes in general.
Sigh. I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I wrote, but I never said something was unconstitutional because it was forced. The mandate is unconstitutional because it is just that...against the Constitution. The Consitution enumerates specific powers to the federal government and explicitely states that any powers not specifically delegated are left to the states or the People. Nowhere does the Constitution say anything about the federal government mandating the purchase of healthcare. (or anything else for that matter).
A mandate gives you something in return immediately, as oppose to taxes.
Oh, so you mean it's not a tax? Thanks.
Granted you can't force to people to buy toasters, but health care, education and security do those sound resonable?
Why not toasters?
I disagree with Friedman on some things, but on most things I believe he is correct.
I believe Friedman was correct on most things...that doesn't mean I go around trying to defend my positions by claiming "Friedman said so."
an argument doesn't have to be libertarian to be viable.
It does if you're arguing social policy.
You can argue that health care is a necessary evil and that spending cuts can be found else where.
You could also argue that the sky is green and the universe began 4000 years ago. What's your point?
Romney says he is for putting a cap on GDP. Lets pretend he is honest.
Okay. <pretendingRomneyishonest> Now what?
commonsenselako:When is military intervention appropriate then?
Technically never, because a State military is illegitimate. But if you're asking when can you legitimately go to war, the short answer is when you are legitimately threatened. But for a true answer, many others have written on this. Here's a few samples:
A Libertarian Theory of War
Can a Principled Libertarian Go to War?
The Justice and Prudence of War: Toward A Libertarian Analysis
Is Humanitarian War the Exception?
If Germany attacks the UK do we sit on our hands? Do we act to prevent genocide or do we just act when we are attacked? Is there no such thing as taking preventive action? If all it takes is to blow up one bridge to save a village of people who are not of this country, then do we stand aside because of our morals?
For one thing, you personally can do whatever you want. Just don't force me to do anything...including pay for your choices. But for another, you might want to consider the real-world implications of humanitarian war.
My point was Mr. James, if you agree that health care, eduaction and security are minimum things that the government should provide and if Romney really does put a cap on the GDP, then is the individual mandate such as Romney's justifiable? You said it is against the constitution because issues like these should be left up to the states, but this was a state mandate and is congruent with Romney's rhetoric.
I wasn't defending my position on the basis of Friedman said so, but because I am in agreeance with Friedman. Wouldn't you agree that some form of minimual sustenance should be provided to the poor or unemployed? Do you think the government should not have any health care system?
If you could elaborate why social policy has to be libertarian?
(I could be imaging things as I can't see how hard you are pressing your keys, but you seem agitated. I am going against my ideas, to provide a sparing partner, which just like in the division of labor is mutally beneficial to the sparing partner and the prize fighter. If this is not the correct topic for this forum, let me know and I'll stop)
Mr. James, I am aware of the consequences of blowback. I am asking though if there was a village of talking puppies in central Africa, who like to wear funny hats and a rival funny hat manufacturer is about to cross a bridge to exterminate the talking puppies, would you blow up that bridge or not? If you say no okay, but if Romney and Santorum say yes does that make them wrong? Is is never okay to to intervene, even to protect a passive unarmed group? I understand we don't have to, I understand it is not beneficial, but is there something innate in us that when we are on top we desire to protect talking puppies and to say otherwise would be in a desire to make things more black and white then they really are?
This brings up a good question from me, John. If a State military hypothetically kills a murderer, is that immoral by Libertarian theory? I understand that the military and government are illegitimate in themselves, but does that per se make any of their actions illegitimate?
To use a more extreme example, if murderer X kills serial killer Y to punish him, is murderer X's action then immoral?
And don't worry, I am certainly not wavering in my ardent advocacy of isolationism. I am merely asking a hypothetical.
I would say Rothbards disciple, that depends on the situation. If murder Y is a threat to others, then he could be killed. If he unarmed, then one should attempt to take him in to custody, unless they feel legitamately threatened. Legitamately threatened is a gray area and needs to be looked at individually. Using that logic I would be against the death penalty, as the murder no longer poses a threat.
Murderer Y can be killed in any case. I am assuming a knowledge of proportionate punishment in posing my question. (Murderers can always be killed, not to say that they should be. I think murderers of lesser threat should be enslaved to do something productive for the private sector in a Libertarian society). However, I was asking John if murderer X is illegitimate in his action of killing murderer Y solely by the fact that he is a murderer?
Proportionate punishment seems like a wrong moral base. If someone attacks civilians does that make it alright for you to attack their civilians?
commonsenselako:My point was Mr. James, if you agree that health care, eduaction and security are minimum things that the government should provide and if Romney really does put a cap on the GDP, then is the individual mandate such as Romney's justifiable?
I don't agree that it is justifiable for anything to be "provided" at the point of a gun, so no.
You said it is against the constitution because issues like these should be left up to the states
I said nothing of the kind. You can go right up and read it. I said it is unconstitutional because it defies the Constitution. I don't know how to make it any simpler.
but this was a state mandate and is congruent with Romney's rhetoric.
First of all, Romney said it was a good plan for all states, or that it should be adopted everywhere or something to that effect, I do not recall the exact wording. Second of all, you may have to forgive me but I don't particularly believe this guy would honestly be saying that "it's okay when I was governor cuz it was just in the one state, but on a federal level, I would never do that." Third, I would love to hear an explanation on why such a socialized system is good for one state and not for all the others. Fourth, I personally don't give a crap why he thinks it was good for Massachusetts or any other state because he was (and is) wrong. And the MA budget and health insurance premium costs prove it. Fifth, it's wrong on a moral level.
I wasn't defending my position on the basis of Friedman said so, but because I am in agreeance with Friedman.
Uh. Great. So when you say "and Hayek argued that everyone should be given the very minimum needed for survival. Friedman also argued for a negative income tax", I'm not supposed to interpret that to mean you're implying that those things are valid because those guys believed them...but rather because you agree with them?
I really don't see how this is helping your case.
Wouldn't you agree that some form of minimual sustenance should be provided to the poor or unemployed?
Provided by whom? On what terms?
Do you think the government should not have any health care system?
Yes, I do not.
Because there is no way to logically justify aggression.
Nope. Keep em comin
They have done this. Why is that the US may give Israel nukes but Syria and Iran can't give some missiles to Lebanon. Israel is a terrorist state that has broken more international laws than that of every other country in the world combined. The continue to steal land, and this is why they are hated. Why sho anyone help them. If the US should help anyone it is the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians to get their land back.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
This is fun argument Mr. James, but I have to wake up for work. The one position I really am arguing based on my beliefs is the negative income because there exists the unemployed person, who has no family or friends. I would like to continue this discussion another time and if anyone could add more reasons to like and/ or disklike Romney and Santorum it would be greatly appreciated. Especially if someone could tell me Santorum's response to his debt ceiling increases, while at the same time being for a balanced budget.
Quickly in response to Mr. Ulyanov, I was giving a hypothetical situation were the shoe is on the other foot. Say the Israelis are Palestinians and Palestinians are Israelis, or better yet do you the think the government should intervene in Palestine now, for the Palestinians?
Proportionate punishment seems like a wrong moral base. If someone attacks civilians does that make it alright for you to attack their civilians.
Proportionate punishment does NOT say it is OK to attack innocents. The theory states that the aggressor can be retaliated against proportionally. If person X killed 5 members of person Y's family, that does not mean person Y is justified to kill 5 innocent members of X's family. Rather, he is justified to kill person X himself. (If it were possible, he would be justified to give person X five deaths).
Attacking the innocent civilians would NOT be proportionate because they have not aggressed. However, you could proportionally attack those who attacked the civilians, i.e., the aggressors.
Quickly again, its a bit different with human life, let me use a different example. If someone killed 5 of your hamsters, are you allowed to kill 5 of their hamsters?
Quickly again, its a bit different with human life, let me use a different example. If someone killed 5 of your hamsters, are you allowed to kill 5 of their hamsters.
Yes. Or otherwise get restitution for the 5 you lost. Killing them would be legal, but it might make more sense just to take them to be your new pets. Amongst other options such as monetary restitution. However, you would not be allowed to, say, kill the man who killed your hamsters, because that would NOT be proportionate.
Libertarian justice is about reciprocity in property not actions. If someone damages your property they must replace that property and whatever costs you incurred as a result of their damaging it. In the case of kills 5 of your hamsters, justice would dictate that they replace those hamsters.
If an arsonist burns your house down, they must reciprocate the value of your home and belongings lost as well as your lost productivity. You are not granted the right to become an arsonist yourself.
You can't take them as your new pets because that would be dishonarable to your old hamsters and restitution would give you the value for your hamsters, plus damages, but that is not proportionate, it is an attempt at being proportionate. Killing a murder is not proportionate. You spouse of the murdered did not value the murder's life equally. Value is subjective and I don't feel it is an adequate basis for the death penalty. I would love to continue this conversation another time. Thank you for your response.
I believe that you could burn down their house to punish them. So long as you are not aggressing upon any innocents inside. That's not to say you should burn their house down. It's merely the legal maximum.
And you say "Libertarian justice." Well, there are many Libertarian theories on justice out there. I adhere to the Rothbardian version, obviously. (I mean, just look at my username! xD).