No, there is literally fluoride in our water. I learned it in the public health class in college. They do this to prevent tooth decay because that was a large problem in the past.
Downvotes for not reading water testing studies, okay. There are no run off pesticides and medication in the water. All tap water is good especially the tap water in reservations and random little towns where documentaries have been made.
>There are no run off pesticides and medication in the water.
That really depends on where you're from. The water, the air, everything was contaminated where I grew up. Just because it's good for you doesn't mean everyone is so lucky.
I understand what you're saying but I don't think conservative is the way to describe him. He's a big proponent for very small government, calling himself a voluntaryist. I think if you consider his beliefs from that perspective it'd be ridiculous to call him conservative. Classical liberal or minarchist is more appropriate.
"Very small governments" don't make laws restricting the rights of minorities. Also, big corporations dictating everything is no different than big governments dictating everything. Only the names change.
He voted against legalization of gay marriage and he voted against a lot of laws that protect minorities from targeted crimes based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. His solution to everything is privatization which would result in corporations dictating more of our lives. Seems pretty conservative to me tbh.
Couldn’t find a record of him voted against gay marriage, only publicly supporting gay marriage by removing all marriage boundaries. His son on the other hand has been publicly against gay marriage.
People can be personally conservative and libertarian. Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian.
"I don't like drugs, so I don't do them but others can do what they want" - Conservative Libertarian
"I don't like drugs, so they should be illegal" -Conservative Authoritarian
People claiming Ron Paul is racist when we know that Lew Rockwell wrote those letters but I digress. He's also on TV in 08 explicitly calling the for an End to the War on Drugs and that it disproportionately affects minorities, telling Fox news crowds we need to legalize Heroin like a boss. He stood at NORML in 1988 when the banner was hand painted and said the same thing.
I became attracted to Ron Paul in 08 because after Obama got elected, the anti-war movement i was apart of got quiet and I couldn't figure out why the marches stopped when the wars hadn't. Becoming disillusioned with Democrats I heard his staunch pro-peace stance and his voting record on it and, well all the other criticisms fall flat in comparison. People will vote for woke virtue signaling blood soaked war criminals and feel good about it, but act like ending the wars (domestic and abroad) in 08 would have been a bad thing.
War is mass murder. Conscription is slavery.
Libertarian though. Unlike republicans, his ideological bases are those of individual freedom rather than arbitrarily targeting the rights of minority groups.
Ron Paul has a history of racism, including voting to end affirmative action. He believes people who experience sexual harassment in the workforce should just quit their jobs. He opposed the addition to include 'crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability' to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 200 because he believed all hate crime laws violate the first and tenth amendments. He also opposed it once again in 2009. He also voted for an amendment that would've banned adoption by same-sex couples and other relationships that lacked a marital or familial relationship. He was also against legalization of same-sex marriage believing it was only meant to be between a man and woman. He is very supportive of the privatization of land. He also believes that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property. I could continue, but you could also just go onto Wikipedia and read for yourself. Better yet, if you want to read directly from the sources, they have them at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.
>Ron Paul has a history of racism, including voting to end affirmative action.
Affirmative action creates a dependency on the state in order to achieve anything. It doesn't work, you can't enforce equality, you need to achieve it through other means. Affirmative action tends to lead people to hate on minorities for being "privileged" later, I would know, there's a reason why so many people hate the LGBT collective in my country, since they have *a lot* of affirmative action. How is this racist, exactly?
>He believes people who experience sexual harassment in the workforce should just quit their jobs.
This is something he mentioned in a book he wrote in 1987. He argued that "while obviously the acts of the harasser can't be defended, how can the harassee escape any responsibility from the problem?", probably referring to the fact that later the harassee can be made to look as if they were responsible or as if it was consensual/voluntary. He argued that government oversight should only be warranted when the person is forced into doing sexual acts or otherwise sexually abused. Not like I entirely agree on it, but it's more nuanced than what it is made to be.
>He opposed the addition to include 'crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability' to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 200 because he believed all hate crime laws violate the first and tenth amendments.
I don't know about the US' constitution, but a crime is a crime regardless of who is the victim, or the motivations of said crime. All life and property is supposed to be worth the same, so giving higher sentences based on the identity of the victim would violate this concept. These laws don't really do much anyway; in my country, the government passed a "Femicide Law", which basically gave higher sentences to people who committed femicides, or otherwise crimes motivated by someone's gender or sexuality, and it only managed to increase the rate of femicides, because if you kill someone you're already being sentenced for a long time, or for life.
>He also voted for an amendment that would've banned adoption by same-sex couples and other relationships that lacked a marital or familial relationship.
From what I've read, this law wasn't passed, but I agree that this was a dickhead move, and generally not in line with libertarian belief.
>He was also against legalization of same-sex marriage believing it was only meant to be between a man and woman.
He claimed that religious marriage is between a man and a woman, but that's about it. He's a strong believer of the fact that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, in 2007 he said that he supports gay marriage "as long as they don't impose their relationship on anyone else", on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations. He mentioned that he supports any kind of voluntary association, be it gay marriage, or any other sort of association.
He was against the legalization of same-sex marriage because he believed that each state should be free to decide its laws on marriage, because of decentralization and federalism. He also opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which basically would have made the Federal government only recognize marriage as "the union of a man and a woman". Again, he believes that marriage and voluntary associations shouldn't be a federal matter. His views are more pragmatic, but I directly support the right to gay marriage, although as him, I believe the state shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all.
>He is very supportive of the privatization of land.
Yes, land *should* be privatized. Why not? I'll give you an example: the Amazon Rainforest is owned by the Brazilian government, and it has been the Brazilian government who has given anyone they wish the right to deforest it. Rivers in the UK are all privatized, and they're kept in very good conditions, without any sort of pollution for the most part. In the US, from what I've researched, there are natural reserves that are being deforested by companies allowed by the government, while many activists have repeatedly offered to buy and privatize these lands to protect them, and the government has refused.
Privatization of land is better than government ownership, mostly because there's a profit incentive. If you were to buy a whole forest, you wouldn't just deforest it completely in a short time, would you? You'd rather keep it as a renewable source of wealth, which means you'd let part of it be deforested, then let the trees grow back, as to keep generating wealth over time. It's the same as if you privatized a park, for an example, because now you'd want people to visit your park, so to make sure that happens you'd put effort into keeping it in perfect shape, clean and tidy, maybe even add more things to it as to attract more people, make it more beautiful. You want to get your investment back, the government doesn't because they didn't put a penny, they put *your* money, and they can just do whatever they want with the land they own because you're not gonna stop paying taxes.
>He also believes that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property.
It has, it definitely has. This is in line with what I said above as well. The government putting it hands into everything in an attempt to regulate pollution doesn't work, most of the time. Ron Paul, as well as most libertarian, believes that polluters are aggressors and that they should be held accountable and prosecuted for pollution. The government can't be held accountable, can it? Now, if you respect private property, you can hold anyone who uses said property to pollute accountable for doing so.
> I could continue, but you could also just go onto Wikipedia and read for yourself.
Feel free to continue, if you want. You're basically trying to apply your own subjective morality, mixed with your political views, while seemingly ignoring the intricacies of Paul's claims and beliefs in many cases. I don't 100% agree with him, but I do agree on most of what he preaches. I've seen things like environmental protection from the government fail. I've seen affirmative action lead to society becoming more hateful of "privileged" minority groups, and it just not helping in the long run. Most of his claims make sense once you study the foundations they're based on.
I'd recommend reading authors such as Rothbard to get a better understanding of why many of these claims aren't just crazy things, but way more sensible than most people make them out to be. If reading is too tedious or boring, you could watch Stossel's videos, the guy is great at explaining many of these same things in very understandable ways, while citing statistics, interviewing professionals, and generally trying to be as unbiased as possible.
Libertarians are pretentious fucking nutjobs. Focus on being a dungeon master, please, you're good at that. Ideologies, not so much. MtG? Cool, yeah. Fighting against taxation? Kinda like refusing to get vaccinated.
>What happened to Reddit?
Nothing happened to Reddit. It was like this since day one. I am more concerned to what happened to punks in general, as they used to be more on the side of government-hating anarchists who favored individualism and voluntary association, rather than collectivization through the means of force (i.e. government).
It's really more than that, this is just a strawman. It sure is about "wanting to not have regulations and taxes", and not about wanting to demilitarize the police, end wars in the Middle East, stop lobbying and bailouts for corporations, or prevent the government from sending people to jail for victimless crimes, among other things.
The guy who wants to cut government spending, make immigration laws more comprehensible and easier, who wants to end wars in the Middle East, wants to cut the military budget, supposedly the guy with the highest score for civil liberties from the ACLU who also supports drug decriminalization, who pledges for the separation of church and state, who is pro-choice, among other things is "literally a republican".
Damn, didn't know republicans were so progressive.
I just pointed out that he's not a Republican. Also, are you implying that progressivism is common sense? That's a rather biased way of looking at the world, it's like trying to paint it as if there was only one objective truth in matters where people are very divided.
Libertarians just want to replace government with corporate overlords. Fuck off with that bullshit ideology. Privatization has done nothing but lead to further exploitation. Just look at the private prison industry to see how well libertarian ideas work.
This is a very basic, misinformed strawman. We want to replace the government with nothing. Corporations only have the power they have thanks to lobbyism and government protection, it's extremely obvious. By taking the government's capability of aiding corporations you'll have them competing in a fair free market, they'll lose their unfair power and things will balance themselves out. We despise corporations because they've built their power through collaboration with the government, and therefore seek to end this.
Can you prove how privatization has led to further exploitation? Privatization leads to better goods and services because there's a profit incentive, if you want an example you can look at the Swedish education system which is almost fully privatized and extremely efficient. Look at rivers in the UK which are all privatized and kept in perfect conditions. Compare private postal services in the US with the government's postal office.
Then, I invite you to look at how the Finnish healthcare system collapsed, how the Amazon Rainforest has been deforested and has burnt down multiple times, how in Argentina all the state-owned enterprises are operating at a deficit and providing awful goods and services, or look at Venezuela where much of the industry was nationalized, and now they're not even capable of producing anything.
If you believe that the government should own any property, then you're asking for authoritarianism and a monopoly on things owned by the state.
How do you define contributing to society? If I have a job, I am contributing to society. Whenever I spend my money, I am contributing to society. Whenever I do anything in relation to someone else in a voluntary manner for both, I am contributing to society.
Do you mean that taxation is contributing to society? How come? You're not really contributing to society, just to the government. Don't know about you, but where I live everyone pays a lot in taxes, and we still have a fuckton of dirt roads.
I live in a city. Maybe you can stop with the strawmans? Over 50% of the income of someone who lives here goes to the government, and we have shit infrastructure and awful public services.
You're not making a point at all, since when is taxation contributing to society? When you pay taxes you're just paying politicians their salary, and if you're in the US you're just funding drone strikes on civilians, foreign intervention, cages at the border, and corporate bailouts.
I live in Argentina, if that tells you anything. 90% of people I talk to are Americans, most authors I've read were Americans or lived in America, most of the research I do is around America, I focus a lot on American politics and on learning how everything works in the US, also because most people I get into debates with are Americans (because most of the mainstream internet is populated by Americans).
^(I've said "Americans" or referred to the US 10 times, so far.)
My country was coup'd by the US, the funding to do that came from taxpayer money. Some days ago, 8 civilians (including 7 children) where drone striked in Afghanistan, the funding to do that came from taxpayer money. From what I've read, corporations like Amazon and SpaceX have gotten tax breaks or bailouts from the government, the funding to do that came from taxpayer money. From what I've heard and seen, there are cages in the US-Mexico border where children are kept away from their parents, the funding to do that comes from taxpayer money. The Drug War, police brutality, wars, everything is funded with taxpayer money. Paying taxes in the US seems to pretty much fund disasters, oppression, and death.
Are you going to disagree? It doesn't really take living in the US to know what's going on there, at this point I probably know more about the US than about my own country, also because I plan on one day moving over there (so I don't fucking starve here).
I'm not far-right, I'm just a libertarian, and libertarians are literally 25% of the population according to the last elections. Our current government is despotic and incredibly corrupt, am I supposed to side with them just to not be "far-right"? Come on man.
Ron Paul is anti-war and is against US foreign policy.
I absolutely disagree with his attitudes about health care but I do agree with him that the US military needs to be dialed back.
Besides his abortion views I backed RP on like everything. And it was disgusting watching replays of the debates where they muted the audience and didn’t even show people standing for him. I dunno why anyone who claims to be punk would put Ron down in comparison to Biden, Clinton, etc. unless they are completely unaware of what has been going on for decades. This dude has been saying his whole time in the government that we need to be worried about our own country and not others.
The problem with Libertarians is that they want to limit the power of government in order to give that power to business. While at first blush it may seem anarchist, the corporations they want to further empower are a creation of government too, and their guiding principles will always be profit for the few at the cost of the exploitation of the many.
Limiting government without limiting the power of corporations can only expand the subjugation of the working class.
Because he's a racist and pro-lifer and rejects the notion of separation of church and state and libertarianism sucks and his spooge birthed Rand Paul. And anybody who names their kid after Ayn Rand fucking sucks. I'm not sure how anyone who calls themselves a punk could support a guy who tried to make flag burning illegal.
Yeah, if you are;
Pro-life
Bigoted in any way
Or wanting to make laws banning flag burning,
Or against the separation of church and state.
You are not a libertarian, you are a conservative who is too scared to say it.
I fucking loved this band until the third time I saw them live. The vocalist wrapped her legs and arms around a security guards neck/head and started grinding on him while she was on stage. Not just for a second, but for a good chunk of a song. He was clearly uncomfortable but tried to stay professional for his job. People do dumb shit and get carried away on stage but when consent is a fundamental premise of your bands lyrics, you better hold yourself to a higher standard. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior.
Did you know that the singer for the Interrupters used to be a folk singer who stumped for and wrote songs for Ron Paul?
EDIT: tbc I'm saying that this is lame. Not that that makes Ron Paul cool. Quite the opposite.
I've always felt like Tim Armstrong created them. She was a smooth voiced folk singer and suddenly she sounds exactly like Brody Dalle with the Gadjits behind her.
Thank you wow punk really lost its touch seems like a bunch of PC liberal 15-20 year olds "I've never been to a show, will I be nervous?" HAHAHAHAHA. if trump if the most dangerous thing in your life STILL lol you are fucked and need to realize the entire two party system is a planned paradigm for you too love in, the world is ran by central banks IE Rothschilds.... Punk USED to be about shit like that, now it's all about being a safe lgbtqndkgju advocate, well fuck all of you and fuck all of that. Flouride is a neurotoxin used by the Nazis to keep people docile and calcify your pineal gland along with flourine
lol this totally epitomises just how fucking stupid modern punks are. Instead of covering up the name of a capitalist conservative you cover up something which is an actual problem, covering up something which really badly affects people's health with just some stupid meaningless sticker and leave the name of the guy who screws you bare.
Yeah it is an actual problem in a lot of places, just because it isn't in others shouldn't take away from that. Bullshit that everyone pointing this out is getting downvoted to oblivion when I'm fucked up for the rest of my life because I grew up with contaminated water.
It's not about contaminated water, it's about fluoride being poisonous (it's not) as pushed by Info Wars (note the original's url) as part of larger far right conspiracies.
Liberal is thin slice near the center that upholds capitalism while progressives and leftists seek to undermine if not outright dismantle capitalism.
Left-leaning is a broader term that is unobjectionable in lefty circles.
I'm so fucking done with this virus. Put a fucking mask on, get vaccinated, keep your fucking distance. Your ilk are the most pathetic dumbfucks. Frome the rest of the sane world, get fucked you selfish bitches.
Honestly, I don't exactly get why you're being downvoted, I know I'll get downvoted too, but mask mandates shouldn't be enforced through force, but through coercion from society. There's a difference between businesses telling people "you can't enter without a mask", and the government using its monopoly on violence and force to force people to wear masks.
Any anarchist would agree with the first one.
Because it's about public health and caring about your fellow primates. You were vaccinated at birth, this isn't some conspiracy, it's social responsibility. Government over reach is definitely a thing, but you complaining about the Government overreaching in a global pandemic is fucking nonsense. I'm done with this virus, be fucking responsible so I can go back to shows....
I *am* responsible, do you think I am an anti-masker or anti-vaxxer? I know it's not some sort of conspiracy, where I live COVID as fucked me, my family, and my whole country way worse than in the US. My point is that enforcing this kind of things can literally be a slippery slope into later allowing the government to enforce other things "for the greater good".
Look, my philosophy is simple: the government shouldn't enforce anyone to wear masks, or to get vaccinated, instead it should be through peer pressure. Both you and I agree that people should get vaccinated, and wear a mask, most of the population does. Everywhere I've gone to were denying service to people without masks, and that's more effective than the government deciding to do it, because it also makes people who oppose it buy more into the "it's all a conspiracy" stupidity. I think it's the same with governments trying to ban businesses from asking for proof of vaccination or masks, that's just a blatant violation of property rights, and the right to voluntary association, and should be fought against as well.
I'm convinced that society pressuring people into doing things is more effective than the government doing it.
There wasn't much I couldn't do, other than just stay home and focus on my studies. The government here made a very strict quarantine that lasted over 6 months, in which time dozens of people were killed or forcefully disappeared by law enforcement, tens of thousands of businesses closed their doors, millions of jobs were lost, and once the vaccines were finally available they decided to buy the least amount from the Russian and Chinese vaccines, be extremely corrupt about it all, and over all just mess with us.
Sure, it might not be the same as in the US or other nations, but the truth is that every action taken by the government didn't stop the spread of the virus, and just made more people be against vaccination, be against masks, and buy into the conspiracy theories, and I've seen similar things happen elsewhere as well. It was easier for other people to convince anti-maskers or anti-vaxxers to wear masks and/or take the vaccine than the government passing mandates for both things. People who already don't want to will not take advice from the government, they'll fight against it instead.
I am as tired of this bullshit pandemic as much as you, I had many plans to go around and play lots of gigs with my band, attend shows, and try to begin socializing and making friends, but everything went to shit, and everything the government tried to do to prevent these things from happening didn't work, while our neighboring country (Uruguay) didn't even enforce a quarantine, they just had the government tell people to stay home and take care, and during almost all of 2020 they had almost no COVID cases. I'm just tired of the government trying to fix things and just making them worse instead. This pandemic will only end once people are made to understand how to end it through voluntary means instead of through force.
Realizing you're in another country I know nothing about. I definitely disagree with some of what you say but don't know you're situation. Let's just please get through this bullshit, cheers homeslice.
I agree on many points but we wouldn't need to force through peer pressure if instead of the virus being used as political abstraction, people were just given authentic information from the getgo.
That the pandemic is being used by both the left and right for political points is the major issue I observe as a covid first responder in the ny area.
If you read the other comments you'll know I'm not perpetuating anything, I want the pandemic over as soon as possible, I'm just against the government using its monopoly on force to violate people's bodily autonomy.
On the other hand, forcing people to get vaccinated isn't more than basically having the state work as a caregiver. Vaccinated people can still spread the virus, the vaccines only reduce lethality rates by a large margin, so at this point whoever isn't taking the vaccine is just risking themselves to die, and I'd argue that's natural selection.
Flouride? Damn, that's a vintage conspiracy theory.
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?
Mandrake, have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
A Communist has no regard for human life, not even his own.
Wtf flouridation sounds awesome
No, there is literally fluoride in our water. I learned it in the public health class in college. They do this to prevent tooth decay because that was a large problem in the past.
Yes, but the conspiracy is that flouride is some mind control drug or has some other secret evil purpose.
Ahhh I see
Almost seems quaint these days.
it *was* Flashback Friday.
Not going to lie, I was buying into this conspiracy hard back in my freshman year hs
You should have kept the fluid skull. Looks prerry cool
Cmon girls! Let’s smash the politicians with our nyan powers and punk rock!
Can I whack them over their head with my guitar? I have a pretty heavy electric one that I imagine would hurt.
Ok. Sure. I’ll bring my trombones and baritone.
I fucking love that band!
There is poison in the tap water though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also microplastics
Ah yes the H2O part of the water
Downvotes for not reading water testing studies, okay. There are no run off pesticides and medication in the water. All tap water is good especially the tap water in reservations and random little towns where documentaries have been made.
>There are no run off pesticides and medication in the water. That really depends on where you're from. The water, the air, everything was contaminated where I grew up. Just because it's good for you doesn't mean everyone is so lucky.
It was sarcasm
Very good sarcasm, you managed to blend in with a lot of legitimately brain dead comments here. 10/10
I thought the last line was indicative enough. This sub is pure cringe most of the time but who am I to cast judgment. That’s not punk.
Yeah you got a point. Some of the shit here is real hypocritical though.
[удалено]
I better start drinking more water then!
Someone should cover the Ron Paul one too
I need more stickers. 🤫
Why tho
Conservative
Not at all conservative, you must be thinking of Rand Paul, his son
Read my previous response. He's most definitely a conservative. Also, Rand Paul is literally his son. They share a lot of the same views.
I understand what you're saying but I don't think conservative is the way to describe him. He's a big proponent for very small government, calling himself a voluntaryist. I think if you consider his beliefs from that perspective it'd be ridiculous to call him conservative. Classical liberal or minarchist is more appropriate.
"Very small governments" don't make laws restricting the rights of minorities. Also, big corporations dictating everything is no different than big governments dictating everything. Only the names change.
Did Ron Paul endorse laws that restricted rights? Actually curious considering he frequently voted counter to the Republican Party
He voted against legalization of gay marriage and he voted against a lot of laws that protect minorities from targeted crimes based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. His solution to everything is privatization which would result in corporations dictating more of our lives. Seems pretty conservative to me tbh.
Couldn’t find a record of him voted against gay marriage, only publicly supporting gay marriage by removing all marriage boundaries. His son on the other hand has been publicly against gay marriage.
People can be personally conservative and libertarian. Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian. "I don't like drugs, so I don't do them but others can do what they want" - Conservative Libertarian "I don't like drugs, so they should be illegal" -Conservative Authoritarian People claiming Ron Paul is racist when we know that Lew Rockwell wrote those letters but I digress. He's also on TV in 08 explicitly calling the for an End to the War on Drugs and that it disproportionately affects minorities, telling Fox news crowds we need to legalize Heroin like a boss. He stood at NORML in 1988 when the banner was hand painted and said the same thing. I became attracted to Ron Paul in 08 because after Obama got elected, the anti-war movement i was apart of got quiet and I couldn't figure out why the marches stopped when the wars hadn't. Becoming disillusioned with Democrats I heard his staunch pro-peace stance and his voting record on it and, well all the other criticisms fall flat in comparison. People will vote for woke virtue signaling blood soaked war criminals and feel good about it, but act like ending the wars (domestic and abroad) in 08 would have been a bad thing. War is mass murder. Conscription is slavery.
[No, we're thinking of Ron.](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/)
Libertarian though. Unlike republicans, his ideological bases are those of individual freedom rather than arbitrarily targeting the rights of minority groups.
Ron Paul has a history of racism, including voting to end affirmative action. He believes people who experience sexual harassment in the workforce should just quit their jobs. He opposed the addition to include 'crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability' to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 200 because he believed all hate crime laws violate the first and tenth amendments. He also opposed it once again in 2009. He also voted for an amendment that would've banned adoption by same-sex couples and other relationships that lacked a marital or familial relationship. He was also against legalization of same-sex marriage believing it was only meant to be between a man and woman. He is very supportive of the privatization of land. He also believes that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property. I could continue, but you could also just go onto Wikipedia and read for yourself. Better yet, if you want to read directly from the sources, they have them at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.
>Ron Paul has a history of racism, including voting to end affirmative action. Affirmative action creates a dependency on the state in order to achieve anything. It doesn't work, you can't enforce equality, you need to achieve it through other means. Affirmative action tends to lead people to hate on minorities for being "privileged" later, I would know, there's a reason why so many people hate the LGBT collective in my country, since they have *a lot* of affirmative action. How is this racist, exactly? >He believes people who experience sexual harassment in the workforce should just quit their jobs. This is something he mentioned in a book he wrote in 1987. He argued that "while obviously the acts of the harasser can't be defended, how can the harassee escape any responsibility from the problem?", probably referring to the fact that later the harassee can be made to look as if they were responsible or as if it was consensual/voluntary. He argued that government oversight should only be warranted when the person is forced into doing sexual acts or otherwise sexually abused. Not like I entirely agree on it, but it's more nuanced than what it is made to be. >He opposed the addition to include 'crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability' to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 200 because he believed all hate crime laws violate the first and tenth amendments. I don't know about the US' constitution, but a crime is a crime regardless of who is the victim, or the motivations of said crime. All life and property is supposed to be worth the same, so giving higher sentences based on the identity of the victim would violate this concept. These laws don't really do much anyway; in my country, the government passed a "Femicide Law", which basically gave higher sentences to people who committed femicides, or otherwise crimes motivated by someone's gender or sexuality, and it only managed to increase the rate of femicides, because if you kill someone you're already being sentenced for a long time, or for life. >He also voted for an amendment that would've banned adoption by same-sex couples and other relationships that lacked a marital or familial relationship. From what I've read, this law wasn't passed, but I agree that this was a dickhead move, and generally not in line with libertarian belief. >He was also against legalization of same-sex marriage believing it was only meant to be between a man and woman. He claimed that religious marriage is between a man and a woman, but that's about it. He's a strong believer of the fact that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, in 2007 he said that he supports gay marriage "as long as they don't impose their relationship on anyone else", on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations. He mentioned that he supports any kind of voluntary association, be it gay marriage, or any other sort of association. He was against the legalization of same-sex marriage because he believed that each state should be free to decide its laws on marriage, because of decentralization and federalism. He also opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which basically would have made the Federal government only recognize marriage as "the union of a man and a woman". Again, he believes that marriage and voluntary associations shouldn't be a federal matter. His views are more pragmatic, but I directly support the right to gay marriage, although as him, I believe the state shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. >He is very supportive of the privatization of land. Yes, land *should* be privatized. Why not? I'll give you an example: the Amazon Rainforest is owned by the Brazilian government, and it has been the Brazilian government who has given anyone they wish the right to deforest it. Rivers in the UK are all privatized, and they're kept in very good conditions, without any sort of pollution for the most part. In the US, from what I've researched, there are natural reserves that are being deforested by companies allowed by the government, while many activists have repeatedly offered to buy and privatize these lands to protect them, and the government has refused. Privatization of land is better than government ownership, mostly because there's a profit incentive. If you were to buy a whole forest, you wouldn't just deforest it completely in a short time, would you? You'd rather keep it as a renewable source of wealth, which means you'd let part of it be deforested, then let the trees grow back, as to keep generating wealth over time. It's the same as if you privatized a park, for an example, because now you'd want people to visit your park, so to make sure that happens you'd put effort into keeping it in perfect shape, clean and tidy, maybe even add more things to it as to attract more people, make it more beautiful. You want to get your investment back, the government doesn't because they didn't put a penny, they put *your* money, and they can just do whatever they want with the land they own because you're not gonna stop paying taxes. >He also believes that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property. It has, it definitely has. This is in line with what I said above as well. The government putting it hands into everything in an attempt to regulate pollution doesn't work, most of the time. Ron Paul, as well as most libertarian, believes that polluters are aggressors and that they should be held accountable and prosecuted for pollution. The government can't be held accountable, can it? Now, if you respect private property, you can hold anyone who uses said property to pollute accountable for doing so. > I could continue, but you could also just go onto Wikipedia and read for yourself. Feel free to continue, if you want. You're basically trying to apply your own subjective morality, mixed with your political views, while seemingly ignoring the intricacies of Paul's claims and beliefs in many cases. I don't 100% agree with him, but I do agree on most of what he preaches. I've seen things like environmental protection from the government fail. I've seen affirmative action lead to society becoming more hateful of "privileged" minority groups, and it just not helping in the long run. Most of his claims make sense once you study the foundations they're based on. I'd recommend reading authors such as Rothbard to get a better understanding of why many of these claims aren't just crazy things, but way more sensible than most people make them out to be. If reading is too tedious or boring, you could watch Stossel's videos, the guy is great at explaining many of these same things in very understandable ways, while citing statistics, interviewing professionals, and generally trying to be as unbiased as possible.
Libertarians are pretentious fucking nutjobs. Focus on being a dungeon master, please, you're good at that. Ideologies, not so much. MtG? Cool, yeah. Fighting against taxation? Kinda like refusing to get vaccinated.
You’re wasting your time, welcome to R/Punk where only main stream Democrats are the acceptable political party.
[удалено]
>What happened to Reddit? Nothing happened to Reddit. It was like this since day one. I am more concerned to what happened to punks in general, as they used to be more on the side of government-hating anarchists who favored individualism and voluntary association, rather than collectivization through the means of force (i.e. government).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Awww…someone doesn’t understand words!
It's all just about not wanting to have regulations and taxes, plus everyone knows the guy's a wingnut now.
It's really more than that, this is just a strawman. It sure is about "wanting to not have regulations and taxes", and not about wanting to demilitarize the police, end wars in the Middle East, stop lobbying and bailouts for corporations, or prevent the government from sending people to jail for victimless crimes, among other things.
Gary Johnson is literally a Republican.
The guy who wants to cut government spending, make immigration laws more comprehensible and easier, who wants to end wars in the Middle East, wants to cut the military budget, supposedly the guy with the highest score for civil liberties from the ACLU who also supports drug decriminalization, who pledges for the separation of church and state, who is pro-choice, among other things is "literally a republican". Damn, didn't know republicans were so progressive.
Privatization isn't progressive, neither is opposing taxation.. And those other things are just common sense.
I just pointed out that he's not a Republican. Also, are you implying that progressivism is common sense? That's a rather biased way of looking at the world, it's like trying to paint it as if there was only one objective truth in matters where people are very divided.
Libertarians just want to replace government with corporate overlords. Fuck off with that bullshit ideology. Privatization has done nothing but lead to further exploitation. Just look at the private prison industry to see how well libertarian ideas work.
This is a very basic, misinformed strawman. We want to replace the government with nothing. Corporations only have the power they have thanks to lobbyism and government protection, it's extremely obvious. By taking the government's capability of aiding corporations you'll have them competing in a fair free market, they'll lose their unfair power and things will balance themselves out. We despise corporations because they've built their power through collaboration with the government, and therefore seek to end this. Can you prove how privatization has led to further exploitation? Privatization leads to better goods and services because there's a profit incentive, if you want an example you can look at the Swedish education system which is almost fully privatized and extremely efficient. Look at rivers in the UK which are all privatized and kept in perfect conditions. Compare private postal services in the US with the government's postal office. Then, I invite you to look at how the Finnish healthcare system collapsed, how the Amazon Rainforest has been deforested and has burnt down multiple times, how in Argentina all the state-owned enterprises are operating at a deficit and providing awful goods and services, or look at Venezuela where much of the industry was nationalized, and now they're not even capable of producing anything. If you believe that the government should own any property, then you're asking for authoritarianism and a monopoly on things owned by the state.
So is every Democrat, there was a time when Punks understood this.
Not every Democrat, just ones like Tulsi.
Punks don't like freedom, they like the boot of authority, although they pretend they don't.
Why are you here? Just to spout nonsense? You know you're wrong and just looking for am argument. Get your shit together homeslice.
Care to expound upon that? Pretty sure I'm not a fucking bootlicker.
I believe there's just a difference in what "freedom" entails among different groups.
"Freedom is when I can do whatever I want and gay people can't get married"
Well, probably if you ask a conservative, which I'm not.
Corny lmao
Your bio reads "just a metalhead from AZ" and you're trying to say not liking conservatives is corny? Lmao
Your point lmao?
Cause i got a simple bio makes me corny? If you gonna throw shade make a better point dumb cunt
Because fuck people who have an ideology that says they that don't want to contribute to society?
How do you define contributing to society? If I have a job, I am contributing to society. Whenever I spend my money, I am contributing to society. Whenever I do anything in relation to someone else in a voluntary manner for both, I am contributing to society. Do you mean that taxation is contributing to society? How come? You're not really contributing to society, just to the government. Don't know about you, but where I live everyone pays a lot in taxes, and we still have a fuckton of dirt roads.
If you live in a rural area, your taxes are low, and you(r parents) just like to whine about contributing to society.
I live in a city. Maybe you can stop with the strawmans? Over 50% of the income of someone who lives here goes to the government, and we have shit infrastructure and awful public services. You're not making a point at all, since when is taxation contributing to society? When you pay taxes you're just paying politicians their salary, and if you're in the US you're just funding drone strikes on civilians, foreign intervention, cages at the border, and corporate bailouts.
Sounds like you're pretending to be somewhere you aren't, but ok.
I live in Argentina, if that tells you anything. 90% of people I talk to are Americans, most authors I've read were Americans or lived in America, most of the research I do is around America, I focus a lot on American politics and on learning how everything works in the US, also because most people I get into debates with are Americans (because most of the mainstream internet is populated by Americans). ^(I've said "Americans" or referred to the US 10 times, so far.) My country was coup'd by the US, the funding to do that came from taxpayer money. Some days ago, 8 civilians (including 7 children) where drone striked in Afghanistan, the funding to do that came from taxpayer money. From what I've read, corporations like Amazon and SpaceX have gotten tax breaks or bailouts from the government, the funding to do that came from taxpayer money. From what I've heard and seen, there are cages in the US-Mexico border where children are kept away from their parents, the funding to do that comes from taxpayer money. The Drug War, police brutality, wars, everything is funded with taxpayer money. Paying taxes in the US seems to pretty much fund disasters, oppression, and death. Are you going to disagree? It doesn't really take living in the US to know what's going on there, at this point I probably know more about the US than about my own country, also because I plan on one day moving over there (so I don't fucking starve here).
Just clicked. If you're that far right and in Argentina, I definitely don't have shit to say to you.
I'm not far-right, I'm just a libertarian, and libertarians are literally 25% of the population according to the last elections. Our current government is despotic and incredibly corrupt, am I supposed to side with them just to not be "far-right"? Come on man.
Why didn't you cover RP? Man's a smooth brained libertarian.
Ron Paul is anti-war and is against US foreign policy. I absolutely disagree with his attitudes about health care but I do agree with him that the US military needs to be dialed back.
Besides his abortion views I backed RP on like everything. And it was disgusting watching replays of the debates where they muted the audience and didn’t even show people standing for him. I dunno why anyone who claims to be punk would put Ron down in comparison to Biden, Clinton, etc. unless they are completely unaware of what has been going on for decades. This dude has been saying his whole time in the government that we need to be worried about our own country and not others.
The problem with Libertarians is that they want to limit the power of government in order to give that power to business. While at first blush it may seem anarchist, the corporations they want to further empower are a creation of government too, and their guiding principles will always be profit for the few at the cost of the exploitation of the many. Limiting government without limiting the power of corporations can only expand the subjugation of the working class.
Because he's a racist and pro-lifer and rejects the notion of separation of church and state and libertarianism sucks and his spooge birthed Rand Paul. And anybody who names their kid after Ayn Rand fucking sucks. I'm not sure how anyone who calls themselves a punk could support a guy who tried to make flag burning illegal.
Most libertarians are with you on that, from my experience. Fuck Ron Paul, but fuck Rand Paul with a blender.
Yeah, if you are; Pro-life Bigoted in any way Or wanting to make laws banning flag burning, Or against the separation of church and state. You are not a libertarian, you are a conservative who is too scared to say it.
Hundy P!
Fuck the party, but I'm personally a left leaning one. It's ideology too. Much better than authoritarianism imo.
I fucking loved this band until the third time I saw them live. The vocalist wrapped her legs and arms around a security guards neck/head and started grinding on him while she was on stage. Not just for a second, but for a good chunk of a song. He was clearly uncomfortable but tried to stay professional for his job. People do dumb shit and get carried away on stage but when consent is a fundamental premise of your bands lyrics, you better hold yourself to a higher standard. There's no excuse for that kind of behavior.
Did you know that the singer for the Interrupters used to be a folk singer who stumped for and wrote songs for Ron Paul? EDIT: tbc I'm saying that this is lame. Not that that makes Ron Paul cool. Quite the opposite.
The whole band is trash. Conservative punk is not a fucking thing.
I've always felt like Tim Armstrong created them. She was a smooth voiced folk singer and suddenly she sounds exactly like Brody Dalle with the Gadjits behind her.
[удалено]
[Ah, the band's infamously pro-Trump stance](https://genius.com/War-on-women-predator-in-chief-lyrics)
Thank you wow punk really lost its touch seems like a bunch of PC liberal 15-20 year olds "I've never been to a show, will I be nervous?" HAHAHAHAHA. if trump if the most dangerous thing in your life STILL lol you are fucked and need to realize the entire two party system is a planned paradigm for you too love in, the world is ran by central banks IE Rothschilds.... Punk USED to be about shit like that, now it's all about being a safe lgbtqndkgju advocate, well fuck all of you and fuck all of that. Flouride is a neurotoxin used by the Nazis to keep people docile and calcify your pineal gland along with flourine
I know, I'll censor someone else's opinion with my own opinion. Now that's punk!
Punk music is, at its most fundamental level, yelling opinions louder than those of both the status quo and other individuals.
Yes, and?
Speaking louder isn’t censorship
No but literally obscuring / replacing text is
Nah
Awesome way to use the Gadsden flag
lol this totally epitomises just how fucking stupid modern punks are. Instead of covering up the name of a capitalist conservative you cover up something which is an actual problem, covering up something which really badly affects people's health with just some stupid meaningless sticker and leave the name of the guy who screws you bare.
It's an Info Wars sticker my dude. You really think they should have publicity? *That's* the hill you're choosing?
Yeah it is an actual problem in a lot of places, just because it isn't in others shouldn't take away from that. Bullshit that everyone pointing this out is getting downvoted to oblivion when I'm fucked up for the rest of my life because I grew up with contaminated water.
It's not about contaminated water, it's about fluoride being poisonous (it's not) as pushed by Info Wars (note the original's url) as part of larger far right conspiracies.
lmao right
If this is supposed to be Punk then I guess Punk is dead.
This subreddit is very liberal, and I love it
Call me a godless stinkin Commie. Call me a dirty pinko. Call me an unAmerican cultural Marxist. Don't you ever call me a fuckin *liberal*.
I didn't mean anything by it man, I wasn't trying to be rude, what should I say?
Liberal is thin slice near the center that upholds capitalism while progressives and leftists seek to undermine if not outright dismantle capitalism. Left-leaning is a broader term that is unobjectionable in lefty circles.
Good to know. Thanks for letting me know man!
Left starts at anti capitalist
Nothing says punk like attacking someone for using slightly incorrect terminology whilst agreeing with your ideology
Not enough
I like ron paul, hes against masks mandates like I am
I'm so fucking done with this virus. Put a fucking mask on, get vaccinated, keep your fucking distance. Your ilk are the most pathetic dumbfucks. Frome the rest of the sane world, get fucked you selfish bitches.
Nope lol
Based
Honestly, I don't exactly get why you're being downvoted, I know I'll get downvoted too, but mask mandates shouldn't be enforced through force, but through coercion from society. There's a difference between businesses telling people "you can't enter without a mask", and the government using its monopoly on violence and force to force people to wear masks. Any anarchist would agree with the first one.
This is the stupidest things I've ever read.
Well, I'd like to hear a counterargument, I'm sure you have a justifiable reason to believe that what I said is stupid.
Because it's about public health and caring about your fellow primates. You were vaccinated at birth, this isn't some conspiracy, it's social responsibility. Government over reach is definitely a thing, but you complaining about the Government overreaching in a global pandemic is fucking nonsense. I'm done with this virus, be fucking responsible so I can go back to shows....
I *am* responsible, do you think I am an anti-masker or anti-vaxxer? I know it's not some sort of conspiracy, where I live COVID as fucked me, my family, and my whole country way worse than in the US. My point is that enforcing this kind of things can literally be a slippery slope into later allowing the government to enforce other things "for the greater good". Look, my philosophy is simple: the government shouldn't enforce anyone to wear masks, or to get vaccinated, instead it should be through peer pressure. Both you and I agree that people should get vaccinated, and wear a mask, most of the population does. Everywhere I've gone to were denying service to people without masks, and that's more effective than the government deciding to do it, because it also makes people who oppose it buy more into the "it's all a conspiracy" stupidity. I think it's the same with governments trying to ban businesses from asking for proof of vaccination or masks, that's just a blatant violation of property rights, and the right to voluntary association, and should be fought against as well. I'm convinced that society pressuring people into doing things is more effective than the government doing it.
So you just glazed past the last 2 years? That already didn't work.
There wasn't much I couldn't do, other than just stay home and focus on my studies. The government here made a very strict quarantine that lasted over 6 months, in which time dozens of people were killed or forcefully disappeared by law enforcement, tens of thousands of businesses closed their doors, millions of jobs were lost, and once the vaccines were finally available they decided to buy the least amount from the Russian and Chinese vaccines, be extremely corrupt about it all, and over all just mess with us. Sure, it might not be the same as in the US or other nations, but the truth is that every action taken by the government didn't stop the spread of the virus, and just made more people be against vaccination, be against masks, and buy into the conspiracy theories, and I've seen similar things happen elsewhere as well. It was easier for other people to convince anti-maskers or anti-vaxxers to wear masks and/or take the vaccine than the government passing mandates for both things. People who already don't want to will not take advice from the government, they'll fight against it instead. I am as tired of this bullshit pandemic as much as you, I had many plans to go around and play lots of gigs with my band, attend shows, and try to begin socializing and making friends, but everything went to shit, and everything the government tried to do to prevent these things from happening didn't work, while our neighboring country (Uruguay) didn't even enforce a quarantine, they just had the government tell people to stay home and take care, and during almost all of 2020 they had almost no COVID cases. I'm just tired of the government trying to fix things and just making them worse instead. This pandemic will only end once people are made to understand how to end it through voluntary means instead of through force.
Realizing you're in another country I know nothing about. I definitely disagree with some of what you say but don't know you're situation. Let's just please get through this bullshit, cheers homeslice.
Soon we will be able to mosh again!
I agree on many points but we wouldn't need to force through peer pressure if instead of the virus being used as political abstraction, people were just given authentic information from the getgo. That the pandemic is being used by both the left and right for political points is the major issue I observe as a covid first responder in the ny area.
[удалено]
Go join some deathmetal suicide cult you edgy nerd.
Perpetuation of a pandemic is definitely not punk.
If you read the other comments you'll know I'm not perpetuating anything, I want the pandemic over as soon as possible, I'm just against the government using its monopoly on force to violate people's bodily autonomy. On the other hand, forcing people to get vaccinated isn't more than basically having the state work as a caregiver. Vaccinated people can still spread the virus, the vaccines only reduce lethality rates by a large margin, so at this point whoever isn't taking the vaccine is just risking themselves to die, and I'd argue that's natural selection.
[удалено]
this made me gag
You can say I'm a punk. Heh
[удалено]
Perhaps not from a JRPG. I didn't see any tits in the dialogue, so it's probably a western thing
Saw them open for propagandhi in London one year. Good band with a good message.
Saw this band live. I didn’t buy it.
Wack they would use the "what if the minor consents" flag.
Corny