Libertarians: Stop Using Logic

[ojc02]

Andathar, given the evidence, do you think that Ron Paul is a racist?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Before you go, would you like to comment on why Ron Paul is the only Congressman voting against the US government forcing US companies doing business in foreign countries to register with the Federal Government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. You seem to be implying that Ron Paul's position is that in a hypothetical libertarian state, the public release of information that educated consumers would use to make decisions about where and what to buy/invest in shouldn't be a governmental function. The next question is obvious: how, exactly, is a consumer going to find out about this? Does it involve whistle blowers, whose protection is also not a governmental function?

But wait - Ron Paul, in his floor statement, says very little about any of that. What does he say? Let's read it:

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 180 is premised on the assumption that. divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.

No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States Government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat.

H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the Federal Government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing State and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as State assets, the Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for State and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe?

This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the Government of the Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account.

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, Ron Paul is against HR180 on the following grounds:

-Sanctions don't work well, so let's do nothing at all and let the free market sort it out while we send Sudan's government taxpayer money;
-Divesting from genocidal regimes is a slippery slope to divesting from tobacco, fatty foods and Europe;
-All divestment should be voluntary (it actually is, because the government is a public entity, and HR180 says nothing about forcing any private individuals to divest.)

[ QUOTE ]
Are you an <would be edited by iron>? Why don't you actually READ THE BULK OF PAUL'S RECORD instead of trying to cherry pick a single vote that you can misrepresent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, how dare I cherry pick a vote from, you know, last week.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
That's why you do when quoting someone, brainiac. You "quote" them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would any impartial English majors in the audience care to comment on what putting one word in an entire email in quotes is supposed to imply?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Andathar, given the evidence, do you think that Ron Paul is a racist?

[/ QUOTE ]

He works with them, so he can't be racist, right?

In all seriousness, the fact that his white supremacist site support thread has > 1,800 replies is an interesting sign.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Before you go, would you like to comment on why Ron Paul is the only Congressman voting against the US government forcing US companies doing business in foreign countries to register with the Federal Government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. You seem to be implying that Ron Paul's position is that in a hypothetical libertarian state, the public release of information that educated consumers would use to make decisions about where and what to buy/invest in shouldn't be a governmental function. The next question is obvious: how, exactly, is a consumer going to find out about this? Does it involve whistle blowers, whose protection is also not a governmental function?

But wait - Ron Paul, in his floor statement, says very little about any of that. What does he say? Let's read it:

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 180 is premised on the assumption that. divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.

No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States Government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat.

H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the Federal Government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing State and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as State assets, the Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for State and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe?

This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the Government of the Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account.

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, Ron Paul is against HR180 on the following grounds:

-Sanctions don't work well, so let's do nothing at all;
-Divesting from genocidal regimes is a slippery slope to divesting from tobacco, fatty foods and Europe;
-All divestment should be voluntary (it actually is, because the government is a public entity, and HR180 says nothing about forcing any private individuals to divest.)

[ QUOTE ]
Are you an <would be edited by iron>? Why don't you actually READ THE BULK OF PAUL'S RECORD instead of trying to cherry pick a single vote that you can misrepresent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, how dare I cherry pick a vote from, you know, last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

In short, you cannot read. Or you are being deliberately <insert something iron would delete>.
[*] Sanctions don't work, they actually make tyrannical regimes stronger while harming innocents, and they are a positive harm to American businesses and consumers, so yes, by all mean, doing nothing at all is better than that.
[*] Since state and local governments hold the pensions of tens of millions of Americans invested in funds, they can use the club of "divestment" to politically manipulate companies, markets, and American citizens' retirements.
[*] The "Safe Harbor" provision allows fund managers to dodge responsibility for financial mismanagement.

What a complete hack you are.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's why you do when quoting someone, brainiac. You "quote" them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would any impartial English majors in the audience care to comment on what putting one word in an entire email in quotes is supposed to imply?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would any impartial non-hydrocephalic care to comment on what someone who is not Dr. Paul putting a word in quotes in an email is supposed to say about the opinions or character of Dr. Paul?

[owsley]

wow adanthar, I remember reading your posts in STT way back when and considered you on a very short list of the smartest 2p2 posters, you have undone so much of that in this thread.

Do you actually think that Paul's vote on the sudan HR has anything do to with there being a genocide there or race? It has nothing to do with that, he votes against every HR that would include the government taking those kinds of actions, it has everything to do with his principles about what the federal government should and should not be involved with. Your summary of his speech is a joke, that is not what he is saying at all.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ][*] Sanctions don't work, they actually make tyrannical regimes stronger while harming innocents, and they are a positive harm to American businesses and consumers, so yes, by all mean, doing nothing at all is better than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's cool, because this bill doesn't impose sanctions other than random travel bans. It does seek to have the federal government stop spending taxpayer money to indirectly help the janjaweed, though. Still too much outside interference in local affairs?

[ QUOTE ][*] Since state and local governments hold the pensions of tens of millions of Americans invested in funds, they can use the club of "divestment" to politically manipulate companies, markets, and American citizens' retirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, divestment from a genocidal regime is both a slippery slope and a political club.

[ QUOTE ][*] The "Safe Harbor" provision allows fund managers to dodge responsibility for financial mismanagement.

[/ QUOTE ]

After carefully considering all circumstances, I'm willing to let a fund manager explain away a loss by saying "Hey, I didn't want to deal with genociders anymore. On the bright side, we're not dealing with genociders anymore."

[ QUOTE ]
What a complete hack you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're attacking me for, among other things, daring to suggest that federal divestment from a genocidal regime is somehow more important than the operation of the free market. I'll wear that badge with pride, thanks.

[Borodog]

Again, I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader. Your arguments don't get any better when you recycle them.

[owsley]

How is forced divestment not a type of sanction? What is the intention of forced divestment, and what will its effects be?