4 ms·

> Considering the Pauls were both instrumental in the fight against SOPA and PIPA, you would think that the two of them understood how copyright law is massivel

> Considering the Pauls were both instrumental in the fight against SOPA and PIPA, you would think that the two of them understood how copyright law is massively abused and how beneficial the public domain is. Not many people seem to understand their libertarian views on things. Their philosophy is neither for free Internet or against free Internet. Their philosophy is about less government intervention. SOPA and PIPA are both bills that impose new government control over certain things (controlling/limiting the rights and freedoms of individuals and ISPs). Net neutrality is also an idea that imposes new government control over certain things (controlling the rights of ISPs). To libertarians, almost all government control is considered bad, be it control over corporations or control over individuals. Thus they are against all of these things simultaneously. I'm not saying I agree with their exact philosophy. But it's simple, very consistent, and they never seem to stray far from it.

waffle_ss 14y ago
Totally agreed. Also, even if you don't agree with Ron Paul, how can you not applaud a Congressperson who clearly outlines their thinking on federal issues? I wish that all Congresspeople would consider this criteria before voting on federal legislation: 1. Is this a core function of the federal government? 2. Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties? 3. Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights? 4. Does it protect property rights? 5. Does it protect individual rights? 6. If the federal government does not do this, will others? 7. Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort themarket for political ends? 8. Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?
- toddh 14y ago
  5-8 are clearly extra constitutional and the constitution is so vague as to make 1-4 more or less unanswerable. The constitution is not a set of unit tests.
tzs 14y ago
> But it's simple, very consistent, and they never seem to stray far from it. That's my biggest objection to present day libertarianism. They are consistent and do not stray--even when the outcome is terrible. It's fine to develop a set of principles, and try to apply them universally and consistency, but if you ignore the outcomes you are just engaging in philosophical masturbation. A good example of this is Rothbard. He lays down his libertarian principles, then reasons from them and concludes that abortion must be allowed at any point up until birth. Then he continues and considers what happens if the parents decide they do not want the baby AFTER it is born. He reasons that accordion to libertarian principle the parents can no longer abort the child--it would be murder to actively kill it. However, because no one can be forced to care for another, the parents have no obligation to feed the child. They can let it starve with no legal consequences in an ideal libertarian society, Rothbard reasons. He admits that parents letting children starve is a terrible immoral outcome, but since his principles say it must be allowed, so be it. He doesn't think this would happen often because the parents could make money in the free market for babies, so they will opt to sell the baby rather than let it die. See: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp I think of principles as being to society as theory is to science. The test of whether or not you've found the right principles is whether or not they lead to outcomes that you consider moral, just as the test in science of whether you have found the right theory is how it fares when applied to experiment.
_pius 14y ago
Not many people seem to understand their libertarian views on things. Their philosophy is neither for free Internet or against free Internet. Their philosophy is about less government intervention. Yet the Pauls seem all too eager to push federal limits on abortion and marriage equality.
- fragsworth 14y ago
  Again, a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Libertarians tend to believe the States should be free to legislate what they want. Forcing Abortion legal at the federal level is controlling what States were once free to decide. What they want to do is eliminate federal control of abortion law; and let the states decide. I have never heard them suggesting Abortion or Gay Marriage be illegal at the federal level. I personally don't agree with all aspects of their philosophy, but it's still consistent.
  - _pius 14y ago
    Again, a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Libertarians tend to believe the States should be free to legislate what they want. Forcing Abortion legal at the federal level is controlling what States were once free to decide. You're confusing a states' rights fetish for libertarianism. Libertarians are generally alarmed by forcing things to be illegal, not making them legal. I have never heard them suggesting Abortion or Gay Marriage be illegal at the federal level. Then you haven't been paying close enough attention. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-personhood-flood-insurance_n_1628128.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-per... http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/ http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2...

waffle_ss 14y ago

Totally agreed. Also, even if you don't agree with Ron Paul, how can you not applaud a Congressperson who clearly outlines their thinking on federal issues? I wish that all Congresspeople would consider this criteria before voting on federal legislation: 1. Is this a core function of the federal government? 2. Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties? 3. Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights? 4. Does it protect property rights? 5. Does it protect individual rights? 6. If the federal government does not do this, will others? 7. Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort themarket for political ends? 8. Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?

toddh 14y ago
5-8 are clearly extra constitutional and the constitution is so vague as to make 1-4 more or less unanswerable. The constitution is not a set of unit tests.

tzs 14y ago

> But it's simple, very consistent, and they never seem to stray far from it. That's my biggest objection to present day libertarianism. They are consistent and do not stray--even when the outcome is terrible. It's fine to develop a set of principles, and try to apply them universally and consistency, but if you ignore the outcomes you are just engaging in philosophical masturbation. A good example of this is Rothbard. He lays down his libertarian principles, then reasons from them and concludes that abortion must be allowed at any point up until birth. Then he continues and considers what happens if the parents decide they do not want the baby AFTER it is born. He reasons that accordion to libertarian principle the parents can no longer abort the child--it would be murder to actively kill it. However, because no one can be forced to care for another, the parents have no obligation to feed the child. They can let it starve with no legal consequences in an ideal libertarian society, Rothbard reasons. He admits that parents letting children starve is a terrible immoral outcome, but since his principles say it must be allowed, so be it. He doesn't think this would happen often because the parents could make money in the free market for babies, so they will opt to sell the baby rather than let it die. See: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp I think of principles as being to society as theory is to science. The test of whether or not you've found the right principles is whether or not they lead to outcomes that you consider moral, just as the test in science of whether you have found the right theory is how it fares when applied to experiment.

_pius 14y ago

Not many people seem to understand their libertarian views on things. Their philosophy is neither for free Internet or against free Internet. Their philosophy is about less government intervention. Yet the Pauls seem all too eager to push federal limits on abortion and marriage equality.

fragsworth 14y ago
Again, a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Libertarians tend to believe the States should be free to legislate what they want. Forcing Abortion legal at the federal level is controlling what States were once free to decide. What they want to do is eliminate federal control of abortion law; and let the states decide. I have never heard them suggesting Abortion or Gay Marriage be illegal at the federal level. I personally don't agree with all aspects of their philosophy, but it's still consistent.
- _pius 14y ago
  Again, a misunderstanding of the philosophy. Libertarians tend to believe the States should be free to legislate what they want. Forcing Abortion legal at the federal level is controlling what States were once free to decide. You're confusing a states' rights fetish for libertarianism. Libertarians are generally alarmed by forcing things to be illegal, not making them legal. I have never heard them suggesting Abortion or Gay Marriage be illegal at the federal level. Then you haven't been paying close enough attention. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-personhood-flood-insurance_n_1628128.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-per... http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/ http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2...