PDA

View Full Version : "Heartless"




febo
07-16-2011, 01:31 PM
The feeling I increasingly get amongst possible blue Republicans is that the main problem they have with RP is the "heartlessness" of libertarianism.

RP is aware of this and has been addressing this issue.

I think that possibly some people use this as an excuse for not trying to understand libertarianism, and Ron Paul more. Ron Paul's critique of America is not limited to the feds and the rest of the elite - RP is very critical of the rest of the populace. Some people have powerful reasons for not wanting to confront thier own part in collapsing the system, and they will blank RP.

Is something more needed to convince people that RP would not kill social security?
Or does he need to try to jolt these important but in-denial potential voters? How does one get someone to confront the fact that thier system has completely broken down after a period of rampant society-wide corruption, which the he/she basically went along with? How do you bring them round from the anaesthetic, into .. pain?

Working Poor
07-16-2011, 01:35 PM
You need to promote that Ron is a Republican that is what he is running as. Show the the movie that was made about the movement that is on the home page here and they will see a lot of heart to this movement.

Here it is just in case you can't find it:

For Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR4WYqabTxU

MelissaWV
07-16-2011, 01:37 PM
Ron has already said he's not going to kill Social Security. If he were sworn in, there would not be a sudden stop to all the checks and "benefits" people are getting. That would be suicide from every anglem, and it also would require more Executive Orders than there are pens to sign them with.

Our society right now is governed by the heartless, the out of touch, and people who believe they have a right to dictate to everyone else how to live.

A society with a much smaller, or no, Government would allow us to give or not give as we see fit. It would allow us to help our fellow man more, not less.

When I was younger and the world still mysterious, I got one of my first tastes of how the Government stops us from helping. I worked at a grocery store. Every night, our deli would have loaves of bread which were not used in making sandwiches. Since they'd been out most of the day, and some were cut in half, they were certainly too stale to charge someone for or make a sandwich with. The cold cuts, likewise, were out for part of the day and though they did not stink and were still edible, they were not good enough quality to charge people for.

Do you think that bread and meat and cheese, and all the associated veggies, went to the poor? A food pantry? Some kind of shelter?

No. It was thrown away. When I asked why, I was given a bit of a speech about Government food safety regulations.

Even before a holiday, when we were going to be closed so all baked goods and flowers had to be disposed of, we were told not to give the food to the poor because the store might get into trouble.

acptulsa
07-16-2011, 01:39 PM
The official line being fed to them is that we're all heartless. But you know what? Washington D.C. is heartless, and the less it does the more the states can do, and the more we can do. This is the mantra we must espouse ceaselessly all the way to November if we're to win. It's just that simple.

If you want to see heartless, look at what Washington does with the money you entrust to it for the purpose of doing good. That's f'in heartless. The very definition of it.

Remember--what they are, they will accuse you of being. Just find a way to explain why it's true, and you win the debate.

Oukvekpwv
07-16-2011, 01:40 PM
heartless pertains to the understanding that some dont have confidence that people can choose to donate to private charities and that we need the government to take care of us.. this is the issue that needs major education to socialist minded people.. to have faith that not every single person with money will inherently horde it all to themselves.. that charities work better when not under government control and regulation.. Heartless is truly a horrible misunderstanding of the freedom of libertarianism..

febo
07-16-2011, 01:44 PM
But aren't the majority of us in the west heartless?
Isn't that the simple reason why RP hasn't won and why so few politicians behave like he does?

from 1:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmnSVEkSsoQ

Travlyr
07-16-2011, 02:15 PM
Good video.

But aren't the majority of us in the west heartless?
We were taught to be: USA... USA... USA...USA - Proud of our Stars & Stripes


Isn't that the simple reason why RP hasn't won and why so few politicians behave like he does?

Personally, I think the simple reason why Ron Paul hasn't won is the corporatocracy (http://www.johnperkins.org/?page_id=9) is not ready to give-up.
The other politicians? - Seems about right.

Koz
07-16-2011, 02:20 PM
The heartless thing to do is to let young people pay for all of these entitlement programs knowing full well they will never be able to take advantage of them because the country is bankrupt

AlexAmore
07-16-2011, 02:29 PM
It's just so easy to say Government will take care of us. Notice how it takes only 6 words to explain the whole concept. No wonder the masses latch on to it so quickly. This is what we're dealing with. People want their entire society and government summed up in 6 words.

Slutter McGee
07-16-2011, 02:38 PM
They reason people find libertarians heartless is because they read an Ayn Rand book and make the assumption that all libertarians are just like that crazy bitch.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

febo
07-16-2011, 03:20 PM
I think RP needs to be a little less intellectual/philosophical and reveal a little more of the inner man.

Paul4Prez
07-16-2011, 03:58 PM
Since liberals won't buy the argument that the free market and voluntary charity will provide for the needy, sell them on the practical results of a Ron Paul presidency. Even if he wants to cut back on entitlements, Congress would have to agree and is unlikely to cut as much as they fear. The President on his can withdraw troops however, and stop torture, and close Guantanamo, and stop sending federal agents to attack medical marijuana dispensaries, and stop illegal wiretapping.

sailingaway
07-16-2011, 04:09 PM
Ron Paul isn't heartless. Far from it. That is why he wants to cut miliitarism and try to patch as best he can social security and medicare while turning the economy loose so it will bring in more revenue, and then let the kids opt out. He thinks we have to pay our obligations as best we can, and unlike Obama and those negotiating with him in Congress over the debt ceiling, Ron would not chop up entitlements while preserving corporate welfare. His priorities are very different.

They have to get to know him to know this. Tell them he never accepted medicare or medicaid but took the patients and either worked out payment plans, discounted his services or worked for free when he had to. Tell them that when he was a full time flight surgeon during the Vietnam war, he used to moonlight at a Catholic charity hospital at $3 an hour, to give services to the poor. He is known in his district for making sure that the old folks get the wheel chairs they are supposed to get under programs, and for basic congressional service I assure you is rare in this country. Until the 2007 presidential election, his number was listed and if constituents called, he answered on his home phone.

The man is remarkable, and he has a heart. And if they are looking for that in any of the other candidates, including the one in the White House who is agreeing to cut senior entitlements while keeping big pharma preferences in place, they are looking in the wrong place.

There will be pain because there is not enough money. But Ron wants to pay the real obligations towards those who paid in and rely on it, and to take care of the needy as the first priority for such payments, while society gears back up to take care of its own. He won't leave corporations and banks the primary beneficiary of government, as apparently others would, from negotiations currently ongoing.

And if the people you are speaking to are capable of knowing the system as it is will fail if not fixed, ask them how heartless are those who kick the can down the road until the solutions available are restricted and severe, as with Greece and Italy who have to change overnight?

Feeding the Abscess
07-16-2011, 04:30 PM
Ron has already said he's not going to kill Social Security. If he were sworn in, there would not be a sudden stop to all the checks and "benefits" people are getting. That would be suicide from every anglem, and it also would require more Executive Orders than there are pens to sign them with.

Our society right now is governed by the heartless, the out of touch, and people who believe they have a right to dictate to everyone else how to live.

A society with a much smaller, or no, Government would allow us to give or not give as we see fit. It would allow us to help our fellow man more, not less.

When I was younger and the world still mysterious, I got one of my first tastes of how the Government stops us from helping. I worked at a grocery store. Every night, our deli would have loaves of bread which were not used in making sandwiches. Since they'd been out most of the day, and some were cut in half, they were certainly too stale to charge someone for or make a sandwich with. The cold cuts, likewise, were out for part of the day and though they did not stink and were still edible, they were not good enough quality to charge people for.

Do you think that bread and meat and cheese, and all the associated veggies, went to the poor? A food pantry? Some kind of shelter?

No. It was thrown away. When I asked why, I was given a bit of a speech about Government food safety regulations.

Even before a holiday, when we were going to be closed so all baked goods and flowers had to be disposed of, we were told not to give the food to the poor because the store might get into trouble.

Same happened to me when I worked the backroom at a grocery store a few years ago. I still gave out tons of food to people who ran food shelters, though.