Chile Forum

el puelche wrote:. . . . Gentlemen, the USA is third world because we are a colony. Obama will make it complete. . . .

P., we all see that. Could anyone prevent it now? Obama might speed the process, but only a Churchill -- or, better, a nation of idealists able and wanting to put idealism into action -- could reverse the process.

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:Paul is probably a kook, but he's a kook with his own ideas.

So was Lyndon LaRouche. Having your own ideas isn't a virtue in itself. The problem with Ron Paul is that he really doesn't have any ideas. He's just reciting Libertarian mantras which only sound good because they never have to be put into action. No rubber meeting the road. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and say everything's messed up. And, it's easy to have one solution: "the states should do it, not the federal government." But, we have 230 years of that not working. We even have the spectacle of the Founders ditching so-called states' rights for stronger federalism *for the same reason* every generation in the past 230 years has opted for the same.

Ron Paul's really no different. He wouldn't get rid of food and drug quality laws. Or, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Or, banking regulations. Or, environmental protection. All these things are federal intrusions into *someone's* life. Limiting willing buyers and sellers, or how you dispose of your property (both the premise of a free market). Why? Because he likes that stuff just like everyone else does. So, it's a matter of degrees. Not absolutes. He would just perform these things at the state level. A hop-scotch of differing practices -- something every generation for the past 230 years has moved away from.

The difference with Ron Paul is that he has that annoying Libertarian habit of employing high-sounding, absolutist, "principled" rhetoric to make it sound like everyone else is unprincipled because they're "suckling at the teat" of society, while *he* alone is for "liberty." As I noted above. He's for "suckling at the teat" too. It's just supposed to go unnoticed because he's talking about everyone else, not himself. Or, he's talking about different teats that *he* doesn't find beneficial.

To me, that's the worst trait of libertarianism. Shifting baselines. A smarmy use of rhetoric against everyone else. Rhetoric that applies to the libertarian too.

Mark

MarkF wrote:. . . . Ron Paul . . . has that annoying . . . habit of employing high-sounding, absolutist, "principled" rhetoric to make it sound like everyone else is unprincipled . . . .

No different from most other politicians! Don't believe me? Sit in the gallery of either congressional house and listen to a hour's debate -- or just switch on your television during a political campaign.

RWS wrote:No different from most other politicians! Don't believe me? Sit in the gallery of either congressional house and listen to a hour's debate -- or just switch on your television during a political campaign.

What I detect with Ron Paul (and libertarians generally) is a matter of size and scope. Mainstream politicians, working real legislation make their arguments for or against some issue. But, the Paul types dislike almost *everything*. It's not a matter of how much more or less we should do, it's that we shouldn't do any [fill in the blank].

That kind of absolutism gives the "principled" rhetoric an absolute tone. Which, as I described in my prior post, is unjustified and self-serving because even the Paul (libertarian) types aren't really as absolute as their rhetoric suggests. They want government to dictate how individuals can dispose of their property (through environmental regulation, zoning and building codes). Or, use government to limit consensual relationships (food and drug quality laws, eliminating willing buyers and sellers). The list goes on and on.

It really boils down to the base human condition: who's ox will be gored. Mainstream politicians tend to operate within that reality. It's the libertarians who insist they don't, when they clearly do.

Mark

Marko,

I see alot of rhetoric in everything you write.

p out


.

A noun.

1.
1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
2. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3.
1. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
2. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote: 2. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.

I wasn't using "rhetoric" in a pejorative sense. Just claiming that Ron Paul (and libertarians generally) use principled rhetoric when not justified. My emphasis is on the adjective, not the noun.

The basis of libertarianism is the "non-coercion" principle. The opposite of liberty is coercion. If all relationships aren't perfectly consensual, they are coercive and contrary to "liberty."

The problem is, if you take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion you'd have to live in a state of anarchy because the "social contract" (from which delegated powers derives) is itself non-consensual, and therefore coercive.

Most libertarians (and especially Ron Paul) don't advocate anarchy. They understand the value of "ordered liberties." But, conversely, they advocate a form of coercion. They're ok with "the needs of the many, outweighing the needs of the few." Therefore, they're not much different than anyone else. Except they employ high-sounding rhetoric about *everyone else* being coercive, anti-liberty, etc.

Hope that explanation helps.

Mark

MarkF wrote:
I wasn't using "rhetoric" in a pejorative sense...........

Hope that explanation helps.

Mark

My attempts at sarcasm are pathetic, Sorry

Ah, Vicki: it's only a difference in perception.

Mark,

The point of communicating is to relay a message.

You can fail because your message does not make sense or its not a message that anyone agrees with for whatever reason....but you can also fail because the way you choose to get the message out.

You are failing to get your message out because of the way you communicate. I cannot get through the first sentence usually because it always sounds like you are saying something is...

"...bald, but with hair..." or "...hairy, in a bald sense..." or whatever combo of words that you want plug in...

I feel like I am reading a textbook and the more words you put in, the publisher will pay you more.

Honestly, i don't have any idea what you write about because i can't get through it. We could totaly agree but I won't ever know until you write it out plainly and like you thought it of yourself.

Try putting regular words in like m*th*er F*#k#r, or putting things in the middle of your posts like...you sewed 144 squirrel skins together(furrry side in) that you hunted from the back yard and made a pair of Pajamas...you only wear them on election day when you don't vote for Ron Paul....btw, if you do make squirrel jamies, use ulta violet proof thread, like they do for umbrellas, its tougher.

Seriously, get with it so I can read what you have to say...oh yeah, relax and have a beer or two before posting...that always loosens it up...unless you are at work, then have 5 beers...or 3 tequilas...

p out.

I am not going to read anything you write until you write like you mean it.


.

Puelche
I hate it when you take a break from posting here. Your posts are one of the bright spots of my day. I smile a lot and have pretty much fun, but you make me chuckle out loud. You and Vicki, oh My!!!!!
Helen

el puelche wrote: I cannot get through the first sentence

Feel free to ask for clarification of any concept or word you don't understand.

el puelche wrote:I am not going to read anything you write until you write like you mean it.

That's always an option too.

BTW: If it had been me who changed the topic into being about the poster, I would have been accused of "hijacking."

Mark

Hijacking? I thought it was about squirrel skin jammies.
Mark, attorneys these days are encouraged to use plain language in correspondence with clients. The intent I believe is for the client to "get" what's being said. You might try it.
When it becomes work to read the posts I just move on. If the subject is about a topic worth researching, (Chile taxes, Chile temp residency etc) I'll wade through it but arguing about Ron Paul?
Try this on.
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

MikieO wrote:but arguing about Ron Paul?

Take it up with Vicki. She started it. I only made an off-the-cuff remark about Ron Paul types who would criticize FDIC if they mediated a bank failure too fast or too slow (i.e., those whose nature it is to see everything messed up.).

topic1316-435.html#p14817

Mark

Marko,

No need to clarify something i am not going to read. I do not believe you are so obtuse as to not get what is being said so... you are just playing. It seems you would have more fun playing(and we would have more fun playing) if we could read what you are saying...so you are playing a game that no one wants to play...you know that and yet you insist, so...

...I think you are going to get awfuly skinny with no words to eat.

p out


.