Fruitcake MIDI Forum Treasury

[Cheese Monkey]

[Ricky]

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/

Ron Paul used to be my hero. I don't know whether or not I agree with him any more, but you gotta respect him as a man. Ron Paul is an honest politician with balls, something we need a lot more of.
_________________
Compassion is the radicalism of our time.
- The Dalai Lama

[Cheese Monkey]

Yes, but condifence and individualism != good ideas.

People like Ron Paul because he markets himself as an individual... or, ironically speaking, a "maverick" if you will. That's the kind of thing Obama won on. Obama, however, had a solid base of decent ideas to back up that "maverick" status.

Just looking at that page shows me how out of touch the man is with reality. First he makes a huge leap of reasoning by comparing the income tax to the government believing it "owns" the lives and labor of the people (no). Then he takes a cheap shot at the less intelligent among us by comparing it to communism (because anything with the word "communist" applied to it is the WORST THING EVAR ZOMG).

Then he mentions that excise taxes, tarrifs, and corporate taxes would run the government instead. Somehow I doubt that, particularly the last one. Ron Paul has always been a champion of "profits ad-nauseum" for big business. Last I heard, he supports abolishing the minimum wage. Oh, and he also supports going back to a gold standard.

The man is a looney tune.

Again: I acknowledge the fact that he sticks to his guns. But sticking to your guns on terrible ideas doesn't change the fact that, well, you have terrible ideas.

Lest we forget, the "honest politician with balls" label applies to Obama too, biased comments from the right notwithstanding - it's a fact of his character. I mean, yes, Obama has been tied down by Washington a bit since he's been in office, but he's tied it down about as much.

Which brings us back to the health care bill - in a sense, Obama played the maverick here by stubbornly pushing this bill through Congress. It would've been even more of a maverick move if everyone hated the bill (lord knows pushing unpopular and patently stupid legislation never stopped Bush). And it's true that a good number of people hated the bill, but just as big a number loved it and wished it were stronger. The "tea partiers" and other conservative activist groups simply shouted loudly enough to be more noticable, and then repeated ad nauseum that they spoke for "the real America" (protip: no). It was like a cat puffing its fur up to make it seem bigger than it is.

It's a rather worrying trend, actually... how groups like the "tea party" are rushing out into the streets uninformed and prone to knee-jerk reactions to anything Obama does. Then, because they shout loud enough, they get more followers to subscribe to their special brand of rage-based activism.

Quite frankly, it's a scary thing. Kinda reminds me of the dark side of the Force - it's quick, it's effective, but when all is boiled away, it's just plain evil.

Back in the day of Bush, the left actually had real activism. We would've even been listened to if it weren't for the fact that the right controlled Congress at the time.
_________________
This post has been brought to you by
Cheese Monkey - The Funky Cheddar Monkey
(This post made no sense! Tell the people!)

PSO crap (Bestows +1 geekiness)!
[quote="Xenofan"]You wouldn't be here without sex, the internet wouldn't be here without sex, and heck, the Gamecube wouldn't be here without sex.[/quote][quote="Yoshgunn"]At first, don't overthink things. It's OK to become a small African village and injure yourself.[/quote]

[dPaladin]

Ron Paul is terrible and it comes as absolutely no surprise that you like him.
_________________
dude look at this signature

[Izzhov]

Christ, dPaladin, there's no need to resort to implied ad hominem attacks. Argue policies, not people.
_________________
BRAND NEW FCMidi Forums!

[dPaladin]

I can't attack Ron Paul's logical arguments because he doesn't make logical arguments. He believes stupid things for no reason.

Also, Cheese Monkey didn't do any worse than I (c/w)ould have. Other than his opinions on Obama, I agree with everything he said.

EDIT: Ron Paul believes in Austrian Economics, and most of the silly stuff he says stems from that. Austrian econ isn't 100% wrong, but it is, however, wrong about a lot*. It's frequent wrongness is the reason why there simply aren't very many Austrian school economists around. It's not scientific and it's not supported by evidence. It's fiction.

This (article by Paul Krugman, who is a beast of an economist) is a good entry-level explanation of some of the flaws with the Austrian school business cycle theory, which isn't all of Austrian econ, but it is significant, and it's Paul's reasoning behind wanting to abolish the federal reserve: http://www.slate.com/id/9593

As for gold, you don't want anything that is an input to sectors of the economy to be considered money. Paul might say that gold should be money because it has practical value. That's 100% wrong. The wrongest. Gold should NOT be money because it has practical use. Currently, the size of the U.S. economy is much larger than our gold reserves. If gold becomes currency, its value will have to skyrocket to match demand (demand goes from anyone who wants gold to anyone who wants money). That's deflation. So you abolish the fed and implement a gold standard. The price of gold goes up and any business that uses gold has much higher costs of production. HDMI cables are $30 and no one buys jewelry anymore. Those businesses suffer a decrease in supply and can't meet demand anymore. They go out of business or at the very least charge high prices. Demand for gold is the highest it has ever been. Speculators are in good shape, but everyone else is faced with high unemployment and deflation. There is no way to devalue the gold, because that was usually done by the federal reserve (they'd buy bonds from citizens to increase the amount of money on the market, and they'd sell bonds to decrease it), and you've abolished the federal reserve. The only thing that can create inflationary pressure is more gold, and you have to mine it. Slowly. Really slowly, in fact, because gold has practical uses in electronics and manufacturing and some of your money supply is being made into stuff.**

So going to a gold standard and abolishing the federal reserve are both terrible ideas.

I can write a lot, use all the logic I want, and link to articles from experts and it won't do any good if you don't closely examine peoples' arguments. There is no logical difference between taking Paul's opinion at face value and taking my opinion at face value. If you pick me, you're only right because you got lucky, not because you did the reading and thought about things.

*EDIT again: I think of Austrian econ like I think of Sigmund Freud.

**You can still sell the stuff that it gets made into though! However, goods will decrease in value over time independently of any inflation or deflation, so the multiplier effect of your money is shot when it stops being money and starts being a good. Luckily though, I'm pretty sure Austrian economists don't believe in multipliers.

EDIT3: Ron Paul has an above average social freedoms record though. It's not perfect, but he's certainly better than most other mainstream politicians. He mostly fails on economic grounds.
_________________
dude look at this signature

[Cheese Monkey]

dPal, if you were referring to my "Obama = maverick" comment... well, that's not what I said, that's what people were calling him when the health care bill was passed... "oh, he's like Bush in the way that he sticks to his guns."

I mean, I DO like the man, but I like him for reasons other than that. Health care was something that had to happen, political circus or no.
_________________
This post has been brought to you by
Cheese Monkey - The Funky Cheddar Monkey
(This post made no sense! Tell the people!)

PSO crap (Bestows +1 geekiness)!
[quote="Xenofan"]You wouldn't be here without sex, the internet wouldn't be here without sex, and heck, the Gamecube wouldn't be here without sex.[/quote][quote="Yoshgunn"]At first, don't overthink things. It's OK to become a small African village and injure yourself.[/quote]

[Doctor Phileas Fragg]

I never liked the idea that people are a product of their environment. It lends excuses to stupid, gullible, and most importantly violent people.
_________________
[quote="Izzhov"]But you can probably drop me and tell Lester to do my panel instead, since he's already gay and frankly I really don't care about my sexual orientation. [/quote]

[Cheese Monkey]

Could you elaborate on that a little? I'm not sure which post you're saying that in reference to.
_________________
This post has been brought to you by
Cheese Monkey - The Funky Cheddar Monkey
(This post made no sense! Tell the people!)

PSO crap (Bestows +1 geekiness)!
[quote="Xenofan"]You wouldn't be here without sex, the internet wouldn't be here without sex, and heck, the Gamecube wouldn't be here without sex.[/quote][quote="Yoshgunn"]At first, don't overthink things. It's OK to become a small African village and injure yourself.[/quote]

[Izzhov]

[Ricky]

@Cheese Monkey
I know loads of people that are against the minimum wage. That may be coincidence, but in my experience, that's a fairly common viewpoint among conservatives. I know several people that are for the gold standard. Even the knowledge of that one isn't common among any demographic, probably because it has to do with a field of study which no knows anything about.

@dPal
Ron Paul came up with an idea to slowly transfer over to the gold standard, and it wouldn't be complete until there was enough gold. For a period of time there would be two currencies, like what happened in Europe with many countries when they switched to the Euro. My knowledge of economics = jack diddly, so I'm not going to argue one way or the other. I really don't know whether or not the gold standard is a good thing, and I'm guessing it's going to be that way until I take a macro economics class.

Also, I have to agree with Phileas Fragg. If people are 100% the result of their environment, you wouldn't find people who are anomalies, like successful business people who come from the slums.

Saying that environment, or experiences, create people, leaves out the most important element in what creates people: thought, which leads to choices. So dPal's idea of what creates people looks kinda like this:
(environment) experiences > actions
while mine looks so:
experiences > thoughts > actions

IE, people choose how to respond to stimulus, and how they respond those stimuli in large part defines who they are.

[dPaladin]

Okay, here's another way of looking at this.

Imagine that you are born physically identical to Izzhov, down to each shining little electron. Genetics are contrasted with environmental factors in the nature vs. nurture debate, but from baby Rickhov's point of view it doesn't matter because you don't choose your genes. They're part of your environment. They don't come from you, so they're necessarily external.

Now imagine that all the same stuff happened in your life that happened to Izzhov in his life (environment). Your thoughts, of course, come from the brain, which is part of the physical self. Your experiences shape your thoughts. You don't get to choose your initial environment, since you don't choose your parents or how they raise you or any of that (and besides, it's identical to Izzhov's for the sake of argument). You also don't choose your thoughts, since they are determined by:

1) Your brain, which you don't choose.
2) Your experiences, which you don't choose.

Since you choose neither of these things, then you're going to be exactly the same as Izzhov. You'll look and talk like him, and you'll have all of his mannerisms, dreams, and fears.

Now replace Izzhov with everyone else. Surprise! The only reason your life isn't like anyone else's is stupid random chance.

EDIT: Here's a flow chart!


_________________
dude look at this signature

[Lester Square]

Semantic point: you're overextending the definition of the word "environment".

But I know what you mean and agree with what you say.

Anyway, carry on.
_________________
~Lester Square

[dPaladin]

Yeah, including genetics and as part of your environment sounds backwards, but it doesn't make a difference because the point was that you control neither of those things.

Incidentally this is a pretty good argument for determinism, which I lean towards but am still not sure about.
_________________
dude look at this signature

[Izzhov]

There's one problem with that: quantum physics implies that everything has the possibility of happening, so, while Rickhov has a very high chance of turning out almost identical to Izzhov, there is technically zero chance of him being exactly the same. And there's still a small, small chance he'll turn out significantly differently.

I don't know what this says about determinism, because I guess it's still technically out of your control. I still felt the point had to be made.

[Lester Square]

This post was predetermined from the beginning of time. As such, I have no control over it. It simply is.
_________________
~Lester Square

[dPaladin]

It was predetermined that you would think that clever enough to post!
_________________
dude look at this signature

[Doctor Phileas Fragg]

Wait, wait, wait.


I believe in the old saying, "some people are just born rotten." Which ideology agrees with this?


...Both of them?
_________________
[quote="Izzhov"]But you can probably drop me and tell Lester to do my panel instead, since he's already gay and frankly I really don't care about my sexual orientation. [/quote]

[Ricky]

@dPal

I have no counter argument. I really can't think of why that isn't true. That being said, I really hope you're wrong. The implications of the idea are absolutely horrid.

Most anyone could become wealthy, happy, or a achieve the career of their choice. In the words of Roger Miller, "You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd, but you can be happy if you've a mind to. All you've gotta do is put your mind to it, knuckle down, buckle down, do it do it do it." Some people may be predisposed to be unhappy, but all it takes is the realization that they control their lives and not another. Whether you're right or not, I do agree that environment has an absolutely enormous effect on people.

Also, I'm going to watch a PBS documentary on the healthcare issue. Then I will be slightly informed. Yay PBS!
_________________
Compassion is the radicalism of our time.
- The Dalai Lama

[Cheese Monkey]

Okay, so I finally got kinda-sorta up to speed on the whole "thoughts and environments" debate, here.

[Lester Square]

Right. That's generally the take-home point about determinism: what difference does it make?
If it could be (it couldn't, but suppose it could) demonstrated conclusively that the future is "written" in the "Cosmic Stone Of Time" and that everything that happens is literally inevitable, and that everything that doesn't happen was never gonna... then, would it really change a thing about how you lived your life?

That being the case:


(As it happens, and if you care, I more-or-less completely subscribe to determinism as a principle. If you really care, I can describe my reasons but I strongly suspect that you don't.)
_________________
~Lester Square

[Doctor Phileas Fragg]

But but but Spider-Man says we all have a choice.

And Doc Brown.

[Cheese Monkey]

[Izzhov]

Guys.

The future is not set in stone.

Reread my third post on this page. (The one about quantum mechanics).
_________________
BRAND NEW FCMidi Forums!

[dPaladin]

It might be helpful to remember the reason we started this line of discussion anyway.