Ron Paul is Evil

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its very simple. Ron Paul is a statist. Steven is claiming that the radical libertarians on this board who like him are hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... yeah... Still don't get it. How is liking someone who's 70% right over someone who's 0% right hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you not seen the "lesser of two evils is still evil" or "all statists are the same" type posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those posts are from individuals, not the group as a whole. I know I never make those posts, yet you're lumping me in with them.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its very simple. Ron Paul is a statist. Steven is claiming that the radical libertarians on this board who like him are hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... yeah... Still don't get it. How is liking someone who's 70% right over someone who's 0% right hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you not seen the "lesser of two evils is still evil" or "all statists are the same" type posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Moreover, when it comes down to Rudy v. Hillary or some similar type matchup and its clear that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, will the ACists throw their support to the candidate who is 13% right over the candidate who is 11% right? I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Do you see why?

I thought not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why. Surely Rudy Giuliani can't be "0%" right. If he wants to cut taxes and his opponent doesn't, for instance, doesn't that make him at least a little bit "right"?

At what proportion of 'rightness' does it become morally acceptable to throw your support behind a statist?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with Bickford's question? In Bickford's question, there are 3 options: 1 person who is 70% "right", one who is 13% right, and one who is 11% right. Bickford wants people to throw over the 70%er in favor of the 13%er because he has a higher chance of winning.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't see why. Surely Rudy Giuliani can't be "0%" right. If he wants to cut taxes and his opponent doesn't, for instance, doesn't that make him at least a little bit "right"?

At what proportion of 'rightness' does it become morally acceptable to throw your support behind a statist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've pointed this out to you and you've ignored it before, DV: 13% right vs 11% right actually is a choice between two evils. 70% right vs 13 or 11 is GOOD (mostly right) vs evil (mostly wrong). "lesser of 2 evils is still evil" doesn't mean you can only support someone who agrees with you on EVERY SINGLE issue.

Edit: Mr 13 and mr 11 will both make things worse, mr. 70 will make things better.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its very simple. Ron Paul is a statist. Steven is claiming that the radical libertarians on this board who like him are hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... yeah... Still don't get it. How is liking someone who's 70% right over someone who's 0% right hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you not seen the "lesser of two evils is still evil" or "all statists are the same" type posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Moreover, when it comes down to Rudy v. Hillary or some similar type matchup and its clear that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, will the ACists throw their support to the candidate who is 13% right over the candidate who is 11% right? I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No because the country as it is is 30% right, so you're voting for someone who wants to make things worse either way. Ron Paul at 70% is going to make things better. I would support pretty much anyone who was above that 30% mark that had a decent chance of winning. Other than Ron Paul though, no candidate is over it.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its very simple. Ron Paul is a statist. Steven is claiming that the radical libertarians on this board who like him are hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... yeah... Still don't get it. How is liking someone who's 70% right over someone who's 0% right hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you not seen the "lesser of two evils is still evil" or "all statists are the same" type posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Moreover, when it comes down to Rudy v. Hillary or some similar type matchup and its clear that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, will the ACists throw their support to the candidate who is 13% right over the candidate who is 11% right? I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Do you see why?

I thought not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why. Surely Rudy Giuliani can't be "0%" right. If he wants to cut taxes and his opponent doesn't, for instance, doesn't that make him at least a little bit "right"?

At what proportion of 'rightness' does it become morally acceptable to throw your support behind a statist?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with Bickford's question? In Bickford's question, there are 3 options: 1 person who is 70% "right", one who is 13% right, and one who is 11% right. Bickford wants people to throw over the 70%er in favor of the 13%er because he has a higher chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually not the point he was making. He was saying that if the 70% wasn't there we wouldn't choose between 13% and 11%. He was trying to make a point that we'll choose the lesser evil sometimes but not every time. And I explained the reason for this in my last post. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't see why. Surely Rudy Giuliani can't be "0%" right. If he wants to cut taxes and his opponent doesn't, for instance, doesn't that make him at least a little bit "right"?

At what proportion of 'rightness' does it become morally acceptable to throw your support behind a statist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've pointed this out to you and you've ignored it before, DV: 13% right vs 11% right actually is a choice between two evils. 70% right vs 13 or 11 is GOOD (mostly right) vs evil (mostly wrong). "lesser of 2 evils is still evil" doesn't mean you can only support someone who agrees with you on EVERY SINGLE issue.

Edit: Mr 13 and mr 11 will both make things worse, mr. 70 will make things better.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where do we draw the line? Is 50% the dividing line between good and evil?

What of a candidate that's 51% "right" (GOOD) vs. a candidate that's 49% "right" (EVIL)? If this is some kind of crude interpretation of how we define good and evil, then explain to me what the standard is.

How are we deriving these rightness values anyway? Is there a formula? I'm surprised supporting taxation, albeit limited, could still make Paul "70% right".

Again, none of this seems to quite make sense to me; deriving these values seems to be a purely subjective exercise that completely contradicts the normative claims anarchists make. Statists are immoral thieves and jackbooted thugs -- unless they meet some threshold of rightness?

If this isn't meaningless subjectivism, then give me the formula so I can calculate "rightness" for myself. Supports taxation = -5%? Supports a return to the gold standard = +10%? Supports immigration controls = -3%? Is that the kind of formula we're talking about here?

[Steven Bickford]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its very simple. Ron Paul is a statist. Steven is claiming that the radical libertarians on this board who like him are hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... yeah... Still don't get it. How is liking someone who's 70% right over someone who's 0% right hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you not seen the "lesser of two evils is still evil" or "all statists are the same" type posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Moreover, when it comes down to Rudy v. Hillary or some similar type matchup and its clear that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, will the ACists throw their support to the candidate who is 13% right over the candidate who is 11% right? I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Do you see why?

I thought not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why. Surely Rudy Giuliani can't be "0%" right. If he wants to cut taxes and his opponent doesn't, for instance, doesn't that make him at least a little bit "right"?

At what proportion of 'rightness' does it become morally acceptable to throw your support behind a statist?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with Bickford's question? In Bickford's question, there are 3 options: 1 person who is 70% "right", one who is 13% right, and one who is 11% right. Bickford wants people to throw over the 70%er in favor of the 13%er because he has a higher chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the point is that as we get closer to election day it will become pretty clear that Ron Paul has a near zero chance of winning. If he's still polling at .5% or whatever on November 1, 2008 and Rudy and Hillary are neck and neck, will you throw your support through blogs, internet postings, etc to one of them as the lesser of two evils?

[Steven Bickford]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its very simple. Ron Paul is a statist. Steven is claiming that the radical libertarians on this board who like him are hypocrites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... yeah... Still don't get it. How is liking someone who's 70% right over someone who's 0% right hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you not seen the "lesser of two evils is still evil" or "all statists are the same" type posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Moreover, when it comes down to Rudy v. Hillary or some similar type matchup and its clear that Ron Paul has no chance of winning, will the ACists throw their support to the candidate who is 13% right over the candidate who is 11% right? I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No because the country as it is is 30% right, so you're voting for someone who wants to make things worse either way. Ron Paul at 70% is going to make things better. I would support pretty much anyone who was above that 30% mark that had a decent chance of winning. Other than Ron Paul though, no candidate is over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But by November 2008 we will likely know that one of those two candidates has 99.999999999% chance of winning. And if one of them is going to screw up the country less than the other, why not support the lesser of two evils?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't see why. Surely Rudy Giuliani can't be "0%" right. If he wants to cut taxes and his opponent doesn't, for instance, doesn't that make him at least a little bit "right"?

At what proportion of 'rightness' does it become morally acceptable to throw your support behind a statist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've pointed this out to you and you've ignored it before, DV: 13% right vs 11% right actually is a choice between two evils. 70% right vs 13 or 11 is GOOD (mostly right) vs evil (mostly wrong). "lesser of 2 evils is still evil" doesn't mean you can only support someone who agrees with you on EVERY SINGLE issue.

Edit: Mr 13 and mr 11 will both make things worse, mr. 70 will make things better.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where do we draw the line? Is 50% the dividing line between good and evil?

What of a candidate that's 51% "right" (GOOD) vs. 49% "right" (EVIL)?

And how are we coming up with these rightness values anyway? Is there a formula? I'm surprised supporting taxation, albeit limited, could still make Paul "70% right".

Again, none of this seems to quite make sense to me; deriving these values seems to be a purely subjective exercise that completely contradicts the normative claims anarchists make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking for myself, I have repeatedly said that I will not actually be voting for Paul, as I think voting is a) immoral, and b) a pointless waste of time. However, I fully support Ron Paul being all over the old media saying things that would not otherwise be said in the old media.

The arbitrary numbers were made up earlier in the thread; they have no meaning. Replace them with "almost entirely terrible", "not quite so terrible" and "vastly less terrible" if it helps.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The arbitrary numbers were made up earlier in the thread; they have no meaning. Replace them with "almost entirely terrible", "not quite so terrible" and "vastly less terrible" if it helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this inevitably run into the "terrible is still terrible!" argument that anarchists frequently make? Why doesn't that argument apply here?

To avoid running into this rebuttal, you have to prop up Paul as "not at all terrible" or "good". This would, I think, contradict the notion that minarchist statism isn't evil, which would seem to invalidate many of the arguments anarchists often make.