Everyone is being psychologically manipulated with ads. This happens with any system. That's the whole point of an ad is to manipulate someone into buying your product. The main and primary stipulation and restriction with libertarians is that the ad must not be fraudulent or dishonest. If it's dishonest then even under the libertarian system the government can facilitate punishment to the offenders. It's your job as an individual to be critical of a commercial and to be careful. It's your job as a parent to limit exposure to ads you don't agree with.
Placing your kid in front of a tv to be exposed to whatever the tv station wants tends to be irresponsible. It's your job as a parent to be responsible towards how a young child is exposed to ideas such that you can raise them proper and without excess negative influence. Plopping your kid infront of a tv set to a station that will almost certainly expose your kid to ads you don't want them to see is bad parenting. Instead you'd wish to carelessly place them infront of the tv and force upon these stations what they can and can't do with their own station. It's like walking onto someone else's property and telling them to shut up because you don't like what they're saying. What if you ran a small store and someone came in and demanded you take down a sign showing a product because you didn't like the product? How is that right? If you don't like how things are done in the store then don't shop in the store. If you've assessed a station to have low standards for ads then don't watch the station. But to forbid everyone from watching it if they're being honest? That seems wrong.

As for the Buffett and secretary thing well that's a misconception that Obama is happy to spew. He's not paying 15% taxes on income. He's paying 15% on capital gains. Invested money. When you work a job like the secretary you pay income tax. Then if you have money left over you can invest it and then pay some additional capital gains taxes. So if Buffett first earned that money and then invested it he would have paid 35+% taxes on the money and then an additional 15% on it. Why should people who save and invest money and who already paid 35% be then made to pay another 35+% tax on it? He just happens to be so rich he can live on the interest of his own money basically and doesn't need a real job. If you want to fight people making undue money off of interest like this you shouldn't blindly attack them and the capital gains rate as you'll just end up hurting investment money which could go to supporting more jobs and economic growth. You should fight inflation which is what robs the middle and lower income people and skews money in favor of the rich who can better avoid 'inflationary tax'. The best way to fight inflation is to reduce the spending and stop letting the federal reserve system print up tons of money which is what causes the inflation.

If you're going to claim to be against someone and something you shouldn't shut your ears and should atleast have a reasonable idea of what it is you are against. The idea of the original post was to fight media bias which also leads to lots of misunderstandings by the general public as they manipulate you in their favor. You want protection, but what's to keep the people who control the message from controlling it in their favor to your disadvantage so that they have you singing their tune? Everyone can be manipulated. Let the focus in regulation be nothing beyond honesty if you start allowing people to go after this or that type of message then you open up moral hazards and the door to control on what information you see and more to our detriment sometimes, what you don't see.

If you think TV ads should be regulated for their poor influence on kids perhaps you think Obama should be regulated out of an office for his deceptions too.

I am not concerned with the honesty of ads except in terms of pricing and health impact, which are both still regulated by the DoC and the FDA. The honesty of "news", however, is something that has slipped badly since Reagan undid whatever law it was that actually provided a code for regulation and enforcement of truth in the media. Although I'm sure Reagan pointed to flaws in the original law as part of the rationale for doing away with it, I think things were better when you had to be above a certain bar in factuality to call yourself a "news outlet".

As far as Buffett and capitol gains vs. income, you're absolutely right Doushi, and that's a huge part of the problem - the extremely rich do not make "income" as it is defined for tax reasons, so if for instance John Smith Sr. was a canny businessman and made billions, his son could inherit it all (with virtually no tax on the estate) and never work a day in his life or be productive in any way, and he'd pay only minimal capital gains taxes while living the high-life on investment dividends and short term speculation. Does this work for John Smith Jr? Sure. Is it a sustainable way to run an economy? Hell no! As the money cycles around, it needs to be repeatedly taxed in order to keep up the revenue stream that allows the government to provide services such as regulation of industry, national defense, grants for R&D, and provisions for the basic welfare of individuals. The acquisition of wealth can't be a one-way street or the economy stops providing opportunity for anyone other than those who are somehow able to amass enough capital to break into the elite happy koch brothers club. Redistribution of wealth, as much as the concept has been subverted into being a dirty phrase in the conservative lexicon, is one of the most basic and essential functions of all government, as any anthropologist could tell you. Build a strong middle class and you'll see a strong and thriving society, and that is in-part done by hitting the brakes on the power of the rich, and especially the power of rich corporations. Libertarianism = free markets, and free markets are the place where societies go to die while a few rich freaks ascend to the sky on a pile of bodies. Yay!

let's just empty out everyones bank account into the governments bank every january 1st... that'll teach those rich people to be smart with their money that the government has already taken their fair share out of!

Thanks for the lecture on how to raise my children, Doushebag. And thanks for that clarification on Buffet's tax rate. I didn't really read your droning reply because I knew all that. Yawn. I especially like how I mentioned concrete figures which you explained away to me. Typical repub.

Dude Vespasian, there's room for differences of opinion politically - Libertarians aren't so bad, I just think that free markets are idiotic and that the Tea Party libertarian movement has been basically purchased by corporate interests, though people on the ground floor can't see that or won't admit it. In any event, you're just regurgitating progressive talking points, whereas Doushi is having an actual discussion. I disagree with some of his viewpoints where I disagree with none of yours, but I still have to say that you're acting with a definite lack of grace and courtesy. Can't we keep it civil?

OK thanks for the reply, devilnis

I'm Russian and i don't care...

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/310205_2240614269036_1658430710_2115358_102726459_n.jpg

The implication on the rich seems to be that they got rich by stealing so we're justified in using the government to steal the money back. If there are two people and they both start working at the age of 20 let's say... Person A over the course of 40 years produces 1,000 widgets to sustain himself for all those years and then at the age of 60 finds himself unable to produce enough widgets anymore to sustain his accustomed lifestyle he then turns to the government to steal from others to take care of him in his later years. Person B works super hard and produces 3,000 widgets in just 20 years and retires at 40 having paid for himself for 20 years and now has a comfy amount of money to support himself for another 40 years. But wait... he's not working for 40 years clearly he doesn't deserve all that money and isn't contributing to society anymore so we should take his money to even things up! And we'll use it of course to support person B. How is that fair? If someone makes a lot of money it's presumably because they gave in a lot of wealth to society and instead of getting a good in return they have money which they will then use to get back what they put into the system in value. How is it fair to steal from them?

If I produce enough grains in one generation such that the next generation doesn't have to work to eat what right do we have to then steal it from them because we now have a person who doesn't have to work the fields to feed themselves grains?

What it basically sounds like to me is that a whole lot of people have been convinced the liberty and freedom type approach, the constitutional approach, doesn't work and that we shouldn't even bother trying for it. Let's just do everything we can with government and take care of everyone and steal from anyone that is rich because clearly their is no legitimate way to get double the wealth of another man.

If you stop using government for all these things then there is less power in it to use against the common person for special interests. It shoudl then be easier to keep things in line when it isn't trying to do a million things. With everyone trying to mandate all these things from the government constantly it just creates a flurry of special interests and people make deals to screw over their neighbors to get what they want.

And if we end all this inflationary stealing people wouldn't be able to live off the interest because interest rates should be naturally low if the currency isn't being actively debased. Interest is slavery and theft. Get rid of it and then people that get wealthy will progressively work down their wealth if they aren't working instead of being able to easily live off the interest. Why are we paying someone for not doing anything? Let's limit that and not outright steal.

"I especially like how I mentioned concrete figures which you explained away to me." What difference does a concrete figure matter? We're differing philosophically... arguing exact figures is irrelevant I think. That's what most politicians are doing, one argues for 24% and another 25% as if they're arguing some huge thing and are at serious odds. Then Paul comes in and asks "Why do we have it at all?" He wants us to step back and question what the role of government is and should be. Why we have what we have and what's really worth keeping and what's not. How does it help or hurt the cause of liberty and freedom?

If you made it through all that... thanks for reading it, hope it was worth it! Brevity is not my strong area.

Found these videos: http://www.dailypaul.com/184026/peter-schiff-taking-on-occupy-live-watch-here
Two part video of Peter Schiff talking to Occupy Wall Street people. Trying to talk to them about what the actual problem is and what they are really protesting. And also help them form a bit of a more cohesive movement in a way as the media likes to mis-portay things as something they're not. The movement also risks being hijacked by alternate interests so I like how it gets people discussing things. More general understanding and discussion is an all around good thing I think even if some of the people don't agree or have a different understanding of things.

I like at the end how he starts to get into it about minimum wage. I think people who fight for minimum wages are a bit confused on how businesses work. They fight like they're preventing everyone from being paid like a sweatshop worker, but that doesn't really seem to be how it works at all.

Should also be noted for minimum wage advocates that (as of 2007) only about 2.2% of people earn minimum wage and over half of those are under 25 years old. In a healthy economy workers naturally get paid more and it's really just preventing marginal workers from being able to work at all. And in a down economy like we are having now it may push that percentage higher, but all that line is really doing is preventing people who could earn some money and forcing them to be completely unemployed and 100% dependent on support from others to survive. Lots of people would be better off working below minimum wage right now and the economy would be the better for it as well, but we're preventing it under the guise it's for everyone's sake to prevent abuse. Seems like more than anything it just makes times like these worse as it makes are utilization of our man power worse and the recession hurts even more.

I think what I'm really trying to do in this thread (now) is spread understanding and try to understand myself why some people seem so staunchly anti-Ron Paul. Because to me he's got more honesty, integrity, knowledge, and understanding than all the others. Yet people seem to be convinced he's wrong on this, that, or the other, and that he'd be a bad President (and somehow worse than what we've been getting??). I just find it hard to get sometimes. Like is it more due to fundamental differences in belief or just misunderstandings or some kind of fear?

If you disagree with me please share why and what specifically you don't like about Ron Paul and why that's enough for you to like others more than him (or dislike him).

I can't believe I am getting into this on a gaming site... but here we go:

You don't understand why the most extreme candidate would garner criticism? I mean, I have supported radical liberal candidates, but I have always been aware that being to the far end of the spectrum comes with the obvious conclusion that the majority of the population will not agree with that politician's viewpoints. I mean, Ron Paul wants a complete overhaul of the country. He wants to completely deregulate the financial sector, completely abolish the tax system and go to a flat tax, abolish minimum wage, and go to the gold standard. These are all very large things. Of course it will be controversial. And I am no economist, but my understanding is that most of those things put more money in the hands of the rich and even further widen the very sizable wealth gap of the country (that is most obvious by increasing sales tax to 22% and abolish income tax which is at least somewhat skewed to taxing the rich slightly more). Oh, and getting rid of the Department of Education is frightening to me. Do we really want to go back to the 16th century where only the wealthy get educated? I realize we have major problems with our education system, but defunding public schools is just terrifying to me. While financial mobility is not that common now, I can't imagine it ever happening without free education for all. That being said, he has never really said what he wants to take the place of the Department of Education as far as I can tell and has been ambigous as to whether public schools should all be shut down (and who pays for them if they aren't).

And that isn't even his foreign policy, which doesn't resemble any other major politician since pre-WWII isolationism (for the record, I actually agree with him on a lot of things such as not entering into stupid random wars and eliminating the War on Drugs).

He also has said some terrifying racist remarks. Such as:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Ron Paul: because one's skin color should be the deciding factor in determining whether to try a youth as an adult (sadly, that happens anyway).

In any case, I don't understand how a Paulbot doesn't realize that he is an extreme candidate. Yet most don't. I think its because he calls it "The Constitutional Approach" so it sounds less radical. Like any other politician, he uses catch phrases that make it sound good. But there is nothing inherently constitutional about the gold standard or a flat tax. And it is blatantly unconstitutional to conduct prayer in public schools, which he proposes.

I understand why the most extreme candidate would garner criticism. I'm asking specifically for what those criticisms are so I can understand exactly what people's specific objections are and if any of them can be broken.

From Paul's site:
"While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.

But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans."

I think he wants to ultimately get rid of the income tax and not replace it with anything. It's not the federal government's only source of income (or even its largest). Obviously it can only be done with a drastic reduction in federal expenditures.

The farther you stray the more radical a shift is required to get back to home base. Calling it radical kind of puts a negative connotation on it and suggests it's silly.

"And I am no economist, but my understanding is that most of those things put more money in the hands of the rich and even further widen the very sizable wealth gap of the country"

We've been doing that more now than ever. Leveling the playing field and reducing inflation works to undue that. We've strongly widened the gap and huge spending plans like Obama has done and suggests more of make it even worse. If we stop spending massively and stop as much corruption as we can that helps the rich at the expense everyone else things will be better not worse.

"Oh, and getting rid of the Department of Education is frightening to me."

He wants to get rid of the US Department of Education, which wasn't even established until 1979. It's unconstitutional and doesn't seem to help us be better educated. It's just a huge large overbearing entity that dictates one plan of education for the whole country and forces all the states to play ball or have their education defunded. It's the system that gives you things like 'No Child Left Behind' which seems to distinctly leave children and schools that can't keep up behind. He wants to return school systems to the states and local level as much as possible so one misguided bureacracy isn't in control of all schools in the whole nation. He wants state and local communities to decide what education is right for them and to give people the ability to opt out if they think they're better off educating their kids themselves. I would think many can agree our current system is failing.

From his site: "Returning control of education to parents and teachers on the local level is the centerpiece of Ron Paul’s education agenda."

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Seems like he's just pointing out the bias of the justice system as being laughably bad and against the black population.

"black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
If you saw a huge muscular man covered in tattoos and presenting himself in a fashion typical of a gangster you might be scared for your safety. Wouldn't you? He seems to be stating that in some places that person who fits that stereotype tends to be black and it isn't racism to be afraid. From what I've heard him say he simply points out how unfairly the racist card is used as if someone's fear is racism because they happen to be black in some cases.

"because one's skin color should be the deciding factor in determining whether to try a youth as an adult "
Without context can't really speak well to this one. My guess and of course some people will disagree is that he may be pointing again to the injustice of the justice system whereby someone is more likely to be tried as an adult if they're a minority in the area.

"In any case, I don't understand how a Paulbot doesn't realize that he is an extreme candidate."
I understand he's extreme. I just don't see 'extreme' as an inherently bad thing. Seems to be a tag used to marginalize him and his views. I'm sure Americans establishing this country and separating from England seemed pretty extreme to the people over in England. Sometimes extreme is what is good and needed. I want to know what you have against things specifically not just to be against them because they're 'out there'.

"And it is blatantly unconstitutional to conduct prayer in public schools, which he proposes."
I think the idea some people have as far as prayer goes has taken it too far in the 'separation of church and state' field. But that's a more complicated topic to address.

What's a Paulbot? Are you saying I'm failing the Turing test with these posts or something? Did I just spit out a bunch of canned talking points or something? Or are you suggesting the Ron Paul revolution is also the robot revolution and judgement day is upon us!?

Deregulated financial barons package risky debt into risk-obscuring derivative bundles and then make billions of profits from rising bubbles caused by overvaluation of the value of debt-laden holdings. Then the corporate entities that acted as the interface to the market for these wheelings and dealings collapse, bringing down minor shareholders with them. Many of there are only shareholders because fund managers have extended them out into high-risk markets. Those at the top skim off the cream while they can and then bail.

In some cases, the cost of the collapse of these bubbles is borne by the American taxpayer through subsidies to too-big-to-fail banks, all of us captive to the necessity of keeping the heartbeat of financial infrastructure beating lest all of industry come to a complete standstill. As people watch their savings shrivel up, their access to money becomes crippled in aggregate. When consumers stop consuming, the businesses they work for have to shed employees and scale down operations in order to remain in the black due to fall-offs in revenue. Large ticket, travel related, and luxury markets take especially hard hits. All of the people who find themselves in arrears on their expenses continue to contribute to the problem, as assets comprised in part of the decreasing value of the holding of their debts drop in value even further.

Large corporations also receive subsidies and tax breaks to try and encourage them to create jobs through their business investments. They turn around and create those jobs in impoverished 3rd world companies with lax financial regulation and weak protection for worker's rights, bringing in a tidy profit over what they could have made if they'd set up that factory somewhere in the US where the costs of doing business are higher. Products made or serviced by cheap slavish labor under deplorable conditions then get imported into the US, tarriff free, and then get sold at prices that undercut competing products made domestically, further weakening national and regional economies.

These are just some examples of the myriad problems which arrive hand-in-hand with free markets and deregulation. Many extremely bright people are constantly envisioning and implementing new ways to leverage such circumstances to increase their wealth and consolidate their power in politics under the cover of an infotainment media (Thanks, FOX) that is largely in bed with them, and that has been developed into an extremely effective machine for making the typically apathetic and uneducated voters bend over and like it. The people that have the power aren't using it to the benefit of us US citizens, and many of Ron Paul's stated policy goals would simply make it that much easier for these parasites to operate their dirty con.

It may be that Mr. Paul himself honestly believes that he could build a better society for us through his ideas, but they're still in many cases completely at cross-purposes with my idea of what society and government should be. Luckily for me and the many others who agree with me (or at least disagree with Ron Paul,) the man is almost completely unelectable. If I ever have to eat my words on that account, I'll be doing it with a real sense of concern for what the future will hold...

It's all one part of the **hole**. Only when there is an entire overhaul of the system shall we see any longevity in gain for the majority. Our entire outlook and belief is contorted by mainstream media and the hierarchical structures of the prevailing institutions we are a product of. We may garner short term relief for the masses, though only for the short term. We are molded, albeit unconsciously, by what we experience. Until our focus changes from one of adhering to the perceived norm, to one of exploring and attempting to understand this consciousness we are privy to, any form of government shall end up failing us in the end. The system is set up to favor the bold and ruthless. Our Idols are figures of the mediums we are subjected to, not the Doctorates, Professors and philanthropists that act to create a better world. Until this capitalist rampage is morally governed, it will make no difference who is in charge. The trajectory shall be maintained.