Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

[Raz]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

if you're looking for an opinion, clearly most people following the thread think yes, it is a principled action.

When offered logic or sound analogies you simply claim to not understand the relationship. So i'll try to use yours to explain:

Suppose a person likes meat, they think it's delicious and nutritious. But they don't like that animals have to be killed to get it. They don't have any religious objection though. Now suppose the government forces them to go out and kill a deer. So they do what they are legally obligated to do and kill it. Now that the deer is dead they are presented with the question: should it rot in the woods or should they eat it? isit unprincipled if they eat it?

what ron paul objects to is the part of the system that forcibly takes people's money. Not the part where they give some back. Not claiming the benefit doesn't fix the system or somehow make it less immoral. He's just making the best of a bad situation.

do you think he's unprincipled if he cashes an income tax refund? he thinks the income tax is bad. Why shouldn't he just let the government keep the money? In both cases he is simply trying to get back money he believes should never have been taken from him in the first place. How is that unprincipled? It's like returning stolen goods to their rightful owner.

If the whole system was optional and he chose voluntarily to both contribute and claim benefits, your point would be more valid.

Since i haven't seen you make any arguments that he is being unprincipled, other than simply restating the question repeatedly, i will try to help: if, ron paul knows how much he has contributed and intentionally claims enough benefits to where he is actually coming out ahead (hard to know with interest involved) then i could see the argument that he's purposefully using the system to get other people's money. Even in this case there are some counter-arguments to be made.

Regardless, it would be hard to know enough information to claim the above. And since it seems the goal is to sling mud at ron paul specifically, it doesn't suit your cause to discuss the hypotheticals of being principled in an unjust world.

+1.
;_tu

[c1ue]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

If you're looking for an opinion, clearly most people following the thread think yes, it is a principled action.

Hence my question.

However, what most people think also is not necessarily relevant with regards to principle.

Suppose a person likes meat, they think it's delicious and nutritious. But they don't like that animals have to be killed to get it. They don't have any religious objection though. Now suppose the government forces them to go out and kill a deer. So they do what they are legally obligated to do and kill it. Now that the deer is dead they are presented with the question: Should it rot in the woods or should they eat it? Is it unprincipled if they eat it?

If you object to eating meat, you give it to someone else. Problem solved.

Even in this ludicrous, tortured example - the path of principle is easy to follow.

What Ron Paul objects to is the part of the system that forcibly takes people's money. Not the part where they give some back. Not claiming the benefit doesn't fix the system or somehow make it less immoral. He's just making the best of a bad situation.

This would make more sense if:

a) He was only getting back what he paid in
b) He noted no objections to the payouts

Given that he's called Social Security a Ponzi scheme - which by definition means people don't get back what they pay in - a) is very much questionable. As for b) - I don't see how you can have a Ponzi scheme and still pay out. Clearly both forced payment in and short term pay out are both wrong, even if financially beneficial for only the early few.

Do you think he's unprincipled if he cashes an income tax refund? He thinks the income tax is bad. Why shouldn't he just let the government keep the money? In both cases he is simply trying to get back money he believes should never have been taken from him in the first place. How is that unprincipled? It's like returning stolen goods to their rightful owner.

Wrong, because the income tax is clearly only his own payments in. There is no Ponzi nature.

In a Ponzi, the top of the pyramid steals from everyone later on.

Regardless, it would be hard to know enough information to claim the above. And since it seems the goal is to sling mud at Ron Paul specifically, it doesn't suit your cause to discuss the hypotheticals of being principled in an unjust world.

I think it is very interesting that in your attempt to defend Ron Paul in this very specific instance - that you keep failing to address the question. If I had said: Ron Paul is a hypocrite overall and this is why, then perhaps this would make sense.

However, what I asked, in a forum specifically put aside for rhetoric (wink Finster) is whether this action is principled.

If neither you, nor Ron Paul, nor any other Ron Paul fans can accept any possible criticism of Ron Paul - warranted or unwarranted - then your belief in him would seem to be more adulation than admiration.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070518101118/ --> Ron paul refuses to participate in pension system for moral reasons

Ron Paul does not use government health plan:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...isy/?mobile=nc

This is very interesting - because now we can see that Ron Paul clearly does opt out of at least a few government programs that he disagrees with.

So as I've said before, if in fact he is only seeking to gain back what he paid in, that he might consider clarifying his actions.

Otherwise the question of principle remains.

[Finster]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

Interesting, yet again you've avoided the concept of principle.

And by doing so, you attempt to create a circular reasoning because you've conveniently ignored the actual question: is accepting payments from a Ponzi scheme principled?

You can keep on trying to avoid the issue, but until you address the concept of principle and the mode(s) of adhering to same (or failing to do so), you're not going to answer the question.

I'll repeat the question yet again: As Ron Paul has publicly decried Social Security, as well as compared it to a Ponzi scheme, is his elective participation in Social Security payouts a principled action?

I don't see what is so difficult to understand or respond to here. Some people don't eat meat because they are against killing animals, some don't because they believe carniculture is destructive of the environment, other don't for religious reasons, etc etc.

In every single case, the behavior on either side of the equation is legal, however, the elective action is a principled one.

I haven’t avoided the question of principle at all. Just in my last post, I explicitly stated - twice even - that:

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul.

Apparently you just don’t agree with my understanding of what principle is. Or more importantly, what Paul’s understanding of principle is. From my perspective, you’ve appended some baggage to the concept and concluded that Paul is in violation of your enhanced version.

What is your definition of principle here? Heck if I know. It’s a pretty amorphous and elusive thing, variously defined in terms of "ideals", "libertarianism" … the most concrete thing we get is the title of your original post … that suggests that somehow Paul has invoked a double standard, as if he were accepting SS checks while telling others not to. And as far as that goes, we simply don’t think that’s an accurate assessment of the facts.

So the problem is not merely one of "principle", but either a lack of specifics as to what principle has been violated or simple disagreement with what little you have provided.

Again unclear what is being confused, since I am not speaking towards libertarianism. The question which is again repeated above has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism.

Given that I wasn't speaking about libertarianism, nor was I invoking any of its principles in any way in this discussion, the divergence into libertarianism is yours, not mine.

Thus the question of smoke screen is really something you should answer.

The question asked, in which the 'l or L' word appeared, was my query to you as to what Ron Paul should be considered as, not a description of him on my part.

I shouldn’t have to remind you yet again that it was you, not I, that brought libertarianism into the debate. Any reader can verify for himself that not just the first, but both the first and second occurrences of the term in this thread are in your Posts #1 & #8. That being the case, all this line of argument is getting you is erosion of credibility.

If in fact he is just another Congressman, but one who is considered more principled than most/all of his peers - as much or as little as that says - then that is perfectly fine.

In fact, you are the one who first mentioned the term kook, and specifically cited a failure to accept Social Security payments as a possible means of Ron Paul being portrayed as a kook. To wit:

I’m down with that. Yes indeed I did bring up the issue of playing into the hands of his detractors by making easier for them to portray him as a kook.

Now this makes him unprincipled exactly how?

The above sentences are interesting because nowhere in this thread have I ever noted that Ron Paul was denying anything, nor have I examined any aspect of Ron Paul's criticisms of Social Security which concerns other people. Neither have I commented on my view on whether Ron Paul's views on Social Security are right or not.

The title of your thread apparently sounded that way to StealthCat, and I think he is right.

The question I posed was: is it principled for someone who is so publicly against Social Security to still accept Social Security payments?

Yes.

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul.

Thus frankly your heartburn has very little to do with what is talked about in this thread. This isn't about the rightness or wrongness of Social Security. This isn't about about anyone else but Ron Paul.

No.

Absent Paul’s assessment of the rightness or wrongness of Social Security, this thread wouldn’t exist.

The logic is pretty simple: there are gigantic operational problems with not accepting Federal Reserve notes or using Federal Reserve banks. For that matter, there are specific laws stating that Federal Reserve notes are acceptable as payment for all legal debts.

So your definition of "principle" excludes enduring hardship for one’s cause?

The same cannot be said for accepting Social Security payments. There is neither an operational issue nor a legal one. Thus the two situations are in no way comparable: avoiding the Fed is both illegal and extremely difficult, while not accepting Social Security checks is neither.

In fact, not accepting Social Security checks is even easier than accepting them, because you have to apply for them - a deliberate action.

Ron Paul, if he disagrees with Social Security, should view himself as wronged for having had money confiscated in support of the program. So getting some of it back should actually provide some measure of relief from this wrong.

That’s a perfectly legitimate behavior for someone who thinks SS is wrong. Again, just one of the possible responses consistent with his principles, just not the one you would have preferred.

Your opinion is certainly welcome, but it is not the driving factor. Nor in reality is it necessary than anyone's opinion be the driving factor, including my own.

However, to deny that there is no symbolic value in Ron Paul not accepting Social Security checks - that is a false proposition.

The fact that you had to alter my position in order to find fault with it speaks volumes. In fact I denied considering that accepting the checks was symbolic:

"It is you that asserts that Paul’s acceptance of SS checks is "purely symbolic". I read no symbolism into that whatsoever."

Probably true. On the other hand, principle should only rarely, and in very carefully considered cases, bow down to expedience. Because too much expedience = no principle.

It depends on expedience to what end. We’re not talking about Paul’s personal expedience here, but something that affects his power to promote the cause at bar. The more effective his detractors are at portraying him as a kook, the less effective he can be as a change agent.

Therefore his behavior not only fails to lack principle, it affirmatively supports it.

But as I also pointed out before, it’s not necessary that second part be true for my argument to prevail. All I need do is show you haven’t met the first hurdle of making a prima facie case that his behavior lacks principle.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme according to the laws of the United States. Ron Paul, however, has called it such, and as such has shown that his personal opinion on the matter.

As I said above, there are alternative interpretations of Paul’s rhetoric that do not require him to literally equate, in every sense, Social Security with a garden-variety Ponzi scheme. It’s almost as if you selected the one that puts Paul’s actions in the worst light.

Considering Paul’s stellar record of principle, I’m more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Once again you're trying to invoke legality in place of principle. I fail to see what the legality of Ponzi schemes are when the question isn't about the legality of Ponzi schemes.

Ron Paul has expressed an opinion that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, which would presume either that it is illegal or criminal in his own view. Paying into Social Security is the law, thus avoiding doing so is illegal.

Accepting payments from Social Security, however, is not against the law, which then permits full exercise of principle.

You assert that Paul finds no difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. But in order to do that you have take legality off the table. Selectively rejecting facts contrary to one’s position makes one’s position look weaker, not stronger.

Your view is interesting, because the 'leg in' is mandated by law, but the 'leg out' is not.

I don't see what is messy at all about the situation. Financially it is clear that Social Security checks are to Ron Paul's benefit - that has never been the question.

The question is principle: if I don't care about Social Security one way or the other, there is no question of principle either in paying in or in getting payments out.

If I do care, and call it a Ponzi scheme, there is principle involved. As Ron Paul has neither a need for the money nor would be breaking the law, when then elect to accept Social Security payments?

Again you fail to acknowledge the issue of interpreting political rhetoric. I can understand that, because it seriously undermines your whole thesis, which is predicated on the tacit assumption that the only correct interpretation is that he understands no meaningful difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme whatsoever. Dodging an issue likewise makes one’s position look weaker, not stronger.

In fact you do even better than that, by excluding need for money and compliance with the law as credible explanations for Paul’s behavior. In order to arrive at your conclusion, you pretty much have excluded rationality from consideration. Paul’s behavior is inexplicable. If you adopt your argument that is. If you adopt mine, it’s perfectly reasonable.

Hmmm …

A random person making public pronouncements is one thing. A Congressman, is another.

The former cannot introduce legislation, the latter can.

You said specifically:

The very last part, he may or may not have done - though it is subject to interpretation. The other parts, I asked for some evidence.

Again you choose to debate a surrogate for my arguments rather than those I actually made. In fact only one of the three possibilities I cited need be true for my argument to be correct:

… At least a strong analysis. And I would expect a person holding such views to work to end Social Security, if he is in politics. He might have submitted legislation to end it, advocated a court case contending its unconstitutionality, or tried to persuade voters to support ending it.

How do you know he hasn’t? Far as I know he’s done at least one, maybe all of them. But the point being there is a whole panoply of possible behaviors consistent with advocating SS be abolished. He’s just apparently failed to adopt one you’d prefer.

Your preference apparently is to strike "or" and insert "and" in the first passage, and strike "at least one, maybe" from the second. Tacitly modifying what I actually said in attempt to discredit it is a real credibility killer.

Legal, yes. But the question wasn't acceptability - depending on the term.

The question was principle.

Sure, you can own slaves even as you advocate the ending of slavery, but you're not going to convince me that it is a principled position even as it is a legal one.

More of the same. I count six occurrences of the string "principle" in my post, not counting quotes. Yet you repeatedly resort to allegations that I have failed to consider "principle". Exactly what principle we’re not sure. Except perhaps that principle that because Paul advocates ending Social Security, he should not accept its checks. Which, as pointed out before, is merely invoking circular argument by including your conclusion as a premise.

This would be much more credible if in fact Ron Paul has played into all sorts of 'kooky' claims in other areas.

Be that as it may, there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that what Ron Paul is doing here is a reasoned act. You are assuming that.

Given the choice between assuming that and assuming there’s no rational explanation for Paul’s action, there’s no contest. Your interpretation is compromised by the very assertion that it requires Paul to behave irrationally. In effect, you are accusing him not only of being unprincipled, but crazy, too.

Because breaking the law, especially in such a way as to be construed as selfish, is in fact both a mistake for most politicians and would lead to the kooky label, because failing to pay into Social Security could easily be parlayed into Ron Paul wants this cute granny to starve.

How exactly would 'kook' be applied for him not accepting Social Security payouts? That he's not as greedy as he should be?

If you’re asking me to defend what MSNBC, the New York Times, or Bloomberg News might do with it, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Don’t forget MSNBC has already termed his views "crankish". It’s right there in your opening post.

So far your justifications seem to consist of either that he's not doing anything illegal, that he's avoiding the possibility of being labelled a kook, and that he is entitled to get his money back out of the system.

Not a single one of these justifications has anything to do with principle. The first is law, the second is public relations/politics, and the third is financial gain.

As such I don't see why these should be accepted as relevant in any way with the original question, which once again was:

As Ron Paul has publicly decried Social Security, as well as compared it to a Ponzi scheme, is his elective participation in Social Security payouts a principled action?

Yes.

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. And please don’t post yet another reply that accuses me of failing to consider "principle". It really is bad for your credibility.

So liver and onions stinking is a principle? What principle is that precisely? Are people morally corrupt and or criminal in liking or not liking liver and onions?

I fail to see the relevance.

Now and then I like to spice up my posts with whimsical little anecdotes.

As for what to do, that seems quite simple: you state that you're very sorry, but you really don't take well to liver and onions, and could the plate please be moved elsewhere.

Unfortunately as noted before, you are again fixated on objective legality.

Again you are reminded that I have addressed the issue of principle throughout this debate. By what standard it fails is not clear, except perhaps that you don’t like it. Meanwhile, your selective wish to exclude other evidence like legality tells us more about the potency of the legality argument than it’s relevance.

Be that as it may, the point which you are now making is that Ron Paul is in fact politicking against Social Security, but in fact is not actually of the opinion that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

It sounds like you are starting to catch on. I think it’s highly unlikely that Paul thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme in every respect, that no differences between them could be found.

Yet this doesn't change the equation in any way to Ron Paul's benefit.

You’re getting delusional. You’ve been hammering on the notion that Paul equates Social Security with a Ponzi scheme for days. And now the possibility that might not fully be the case means nothing to your argument? If so, you have been blowing a lot of smoke!

If you in fact believe Social Security is wrong and should be abolished, it still seems more than a bit odd to elect to participate in it - especially the parts you don't have to either financially or legally.

Paul is required to participate in it. And to expect him to participate in the part that takes money from him, but eschew the part that gives it back, on the basis of some vaguely enhanced definition of principle, well, that’s an opinion I don’t share.

If anything this view is worse: Ron Paul is now a politician cynically making inflammatory comments on Social Security in order to get his way, even though he is more than happy to reap the benefits from it in the meantime.

Ron Paul is a politician who opposes Social Security and has made inflammatory comments about it. What principle does this violate?

If anything this view is worse: Ron Paul is now a politician cynically making inflammatory comments on Social Security in order to get his way, even though he is more than happy to reap the benefits from it in the meantime.

For that matter, under your latest view on Ron Paul and Social Security - that he is engaging in rhetoric - what then of his rhetoric on the Federal Reserve? That it too is purely a political device?

It is a rhetorical device in a political context. That it is directed against an institution he opposes puts it in a similar place as his rhetoric against Social Security. Consistent with his views.

I do in fact believe there need to be changes made, however, this dichotomy is hard to sustain given Ron Paul's very public crusade against the Federal Reserve.

It is equally difficult to credit given Ron Paul's lack of alternatives to Social Security outside of the amorphous 'free market', but perhaps you can fill in what Mr. Paul is advocating in Social Security's place.

My point was that there are interpretations of the facts that are perfectly reasonable and which don’t lead to the conclusion that Paul is in violation of principle. In fact it’s harder to get to your conclusion without assuming Paul is nuts - after all for no apparent reason (he doesn’t need the money, he doesn’t have to in order to comply with the law…) he signed up for benefits from a program he paid into even though he advocates ending it.

When there are multiple interpretations of a set of facts, usually the rational thing to look for is the one that makes the most sense, not the one that requires the biggest stretches. And even then, you have no proof, just a hierarchy of likelihood. You haven’t made the case that Paul’s actions lack principle.

... Suppose a person likes meat, they think it's delicious and nutritious. But they don't like that animals have to be killed to get it. They don't have any religious objection though. Now suppose the government forces them to go out and kill a deer. So they do what they are legally obligated to do and kill it. Now that the deer is dead they are presented with the question: Should it rot in the woods or should they eat it? Is it unprincipled if they eat it?

What Ron Paul objects to is the part of the system that forcibly takes people's money. Not the part where they give some back. Not claiming the benefit doesn't fix the system or somehow make it less immoral. He's just making the best of a bad situation...

If you object to eating meat, you give it to someone else. Problem solved.

Even in this ludicrous, tortured example - the path of principle is easy to follow.

What is ludicrous and tortured is the way you twisted DSpencer's lucid analogy into a pretzel. Nowhere does he state that the person objects to eating meat. He doesn't like that animals have to be killed to get it. What is being objected to? Killing animals. If an animal is already dead and he eats it, he is not in violation of his principle.

...

[lektrode]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

I like c1ue's posting too, Jim, just in case my posting suggests otherwise. There is of course a disagreement here, but part of my motivation is that I like to debate with smart people ... good exercise for the mind!

and some of us just like to follow along, watching as 2 Masters of The Science of Debate slug it out.... ;)

[c1ue]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

I haven’t avoided the question of principle at all. Just in my last post, I explicitly stated - twice even - that:

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul.

Apparently you just don’t agree with my understanding of what principle is. Or more importantly, what Paul’s understanding of principle is. From my perspective, you’ve appended some baggage to the concept and concluded that Paul is in violation of your enhanced version.

What is your definition of principle here? Heck if I know. It’s a pretty amorphous and elusive thing, variously defined in terms of "ideals", "libertarianism" … the most concrete thing we get is the title of your original post … that suggests that somehow Paul has invoked a double standard, as if he were accepting SS checks while telling others not to. And as far as that goes, we simply don’t think that’s an accurate assessment of the facts.

So the problem is not merely one of "principle", but either a lack of specifics as to what principle has been violated or simple disagreement with what little you have provided.

Strange, I have repeated noted what I consider a possible violation of principle: the voluntary election to receive Social Security payments from a system which Ron Paul has publicly decried both as unconstitutional and a Ponzi scheme.

If in fact Ron Paul had made no such comments, then no issue of principle.

If Ron Paul had elected to receive Social Security only in order to regain his payments in, this would be more credible if in fact he noted so when asked about this subject.

Equally there are clear examples where Ron Paul elected not to exercise his voluntary participation in a system which he disagrees with: the federal pension program.

The medical subsidy paid by the federal government to politician's and their staff - that is less clear. It is not clear how credible it is that Ron Paul is unaware of the subsidy, but it is equally clear that he hasn't refused it. His answer to the question (from the link aaron posted) is evasive because his usage of Blue Cross doesn't in any way preclude receiving the subsidy.

I shouldn’t have to remind you yet again that it was you, not I, that brought libertarianism into the debate. Any reader can verify for himself that not just the first, but both the first and second occurrences of the term in this thread are in your Posts #1 & #8. That being the case, all this line of argument is getting you is erosion of credibility.

I mentioned the word libertarian first, but it was to clarify what you meant by idealist, not what is/is not libertarian. It was you who decided to go large L small l - the extrapolation of which still didn't answer the original question of whether Ron Paul is an idealist or not. In reality, it doesn't matter if Ron Paul is an idealist or not.

I could argue that Ron Paul as a public figure who has created an image of himself has the responsibility to either correct said image or live up to what image exists, but frankly that isn't relevant here either.

Nor do I believe the subsequent question was answered:

if my expectations are wrong, then what are the correct ones?

Merely stating that there are multiple forms under which Ron Paul might practice his views does not actually say what his views are or whether they are being followed.

The facts are that he openly decries Social Security yet voluntarily signed up to get payments. His idealism or lack thereof isn't the question or even relevant. The question is if this dichotomy comprises a principled action.

I’m down with that. Yes indeed I did bring up the issue of playing into the hands of his detractors by making easier for them to portray him as a kook.

Now this makes him unprincipled exactly how?

I'm unclear what you're trying to say here. You brought up kookiness - implying that refusing to accept Social Security is/would be construed as kooky behavior.

Yet this is precisely the assignation of your personal view into this subject which you're accusing me of, because I see the decision (or even, non decision) to not receive Social Security checks as being a symbolic action and a principled one - and not the least bit kooky. Ron Paul's symbolic actions in other instances such as his Federal Pension recusal contrasts strangely with his Social Security actions.

As for principled or not - you assume that the voluntary decision to accept Social Security was for the purpose of "not being kooky". This is equally unsupported in any way.

All in all, kookiness is largely irrelevant. It might be a reason, but so can a host of others including hypocrisy, financial manager doing the election for him/Ron Paul being so wealthy that a couple thousand dollar Social Security checks are under his radar, etc etc etc.

The title of your thread apparently sounded that way to StealthCat, and I think he is right.

I agree with this, but I also think that this is the way of the world. A politician who cannot accept nor defend himself against accusations which may not be 100% true - has no business being in that business.

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul.

Fair enough. You don't think it is unprincipled for someone who calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme to accept payments from it.

I do.

There can be illuminating circumstances for both our positions which would likely change our views - the difference is your view is assuming the best of Ron Paul while mine makes no such assumption.

No.

Absent Paul’s assessment of the rightness or wrongness of Social Security, this thread wouldn’t exist.

We're not talking about the objective rightness or wrongness of Social Security, if there is such a thing.

We're talking about Ron Paul's view of it. And it is clear what he thinks, and equally clear what he has done: he thinks badly of it, but he doesn't mind taking money from it.

I do agree there can be extenuating circumstances, but to date Ron Paul has made no indication these might be true.

I also hope that you can at least admit the possibility that there are no extenuating circumstances.

So your definition of "principle" excludes enduring hardship for one’s cause?

My view is that while it can be admirable for a person to try and stand aside from the entire monetary system of the society he lives in, that this course of action is not feasible for a politician. It isn't feasible for a politician because they are precisely a part of the political and legal system. For Ron Paul to stand aside from the Federal Reserve and everything associated with it would be to not just endure hardship but break any number of laws.

And while standing aside from the Fed would be admirable, it would equally be criminal.

I can understand why any person would not choose to become a literal criminal.

Ron Paul, if he disagrees with Social Security, should view himself as wronged for having had money confiscated in support of the program. So getting some of it back should actually provide some measure of relief from this wrong.

That’s a perfectly legitimate behavior for someone who thinks SS is wrong. Again, just one of the possible responses consistent with his principles, just not the one you would have preferred.

As I noted before, if this were the course of action Ron Paul is consciously undertaking, then he should be saying so.

For one thing, it is impossible to distinguish between the vigilante financial recouping of payments in vs. a pure financial grab in the short term.

If in fact Ron Paul had spent the time to consider and then embark on this scheme, it would seem more than odd that he stopped at the point of considering the impact on his public image, an impact he could nullify with one sentence.

The fact that you had to alter my position in order to find fault with it speaks volumes. In fact I denied considering that accepting the checks was symbolic:

"It is you that asserts that Paul’s acceptance of SS checks is "purely symbolic". I read no symbolism into that whatsoever."

Hardly. What you've said is that Ron Paul's acceptance of Social Security checks is not symbolic for you. I acknowledged that.

However, I also noted that it was symbolic for me. While there is no 'right' position here which all must follow, the fact that even one person considers symbolic means that the action is, in fact, symbolic.

Therefore your argument is null.

It depends on expedience to what end. We’re not talking about Paul’s personal expedience here, but something that affects his power to promote the cause at bar. The more effective his detractors are at portraying him as a kook, the less effective he can be as a change agent.

Therefore his behavior not only fails to lack principle, it affirmatively supports it.

But as I also pointed out before, it’s not necessary that second part be true for my argument to prevail. All I need do is show you haven’t met the first hurdle of making a prima facie case that his behavior lacks principle.

You're still trying to distract using the 'kook' angle. As the 'kook' angle is purely subjective and that we have very different views on this, I'd say basing an argument on a subjective judgement isn't very helpful.

But just for an exercise, let's go down this path more.

According to you under this line of reasoning, Ron Paul's acceptance of Social Security checks is principled because it preserves his credibility to affect systemic change. The problem with this line of reasoning is that Ron Paul could as easily do so by saying one sentence when asked: "I accept Social Security checks only up to the point where I recoup the involuntary and unconstitutional payments I made into the Social Security system."

He could in fact use the question to build on his position with a 2nd sentence: "The amount which I have personally paid into the Ponzi Social Security scheme is $XXXX. I will recoup that in YY months, and everything from that point on is money forcibly extracted from other Americans."

Certainly the first statement is obvious and easy to any politician. The second might or might not occur, though I'd think Ron Paul would in fact want to do so given his strident comments previously.

'Avoidance of kookiness' is thus a pretty weak defense - it makes all sorts of assumptions of careful consideration when in reality careful consideration would defuse this entire subject trivially via a single sentence.

As I said above, there are alternative interpretations of Paul’s rhetoric that do not require him to literally equate, in every sense, Social Security with a garden-variety Ponzi scheme. It’s almost as if you selected the one that puts Paul’s actions in the worst light.

Considering Paul’s stellar record of principle, I’m more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

What exactly is the difference between a 'garden variety' Ponzi and a 'non garden variety' Ponzi? I presume in both cases that some members of the scheme receive more than they pay in via stealing from the overall contributions.

Perhaps you can outline how a 'garden variety' Ponzi scheme is so much less criminal?

You assert that Paul finds no difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. But in order to do that you have take legality off the table. Selectively rejecting facts contrary to one’s position makes one’s position look weaker, not stronger.

You are again trying to equate legality with principle. Social Security is legal. Social Security is also a redistribution scheme - one in which those who are retiring now receive far more than what they paid in even in inflation adjusted dollars.

However, if you understand that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and you disagree with it publicly and as a politician, then the bar by which your actions are judged is higher.

The question of principle arises.

And once again, principle is not legality. As I've already noted: if a person owned slaves in 1859 - which was legal in almost the entire United States - but were an abolitionist, most people would rightly consider this person a hypocrite.

Again you fail to acknowledge the issue of interpreting political rhetoric. I can understand that, because it seriously undermines your whole thesis, which is predicated on the tacit assumption that the only correct interpretation is that he understands no meaningful difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme whatsoever. Dodging an issue likewise makes one’s position look weaker, not stronger.

In fact you do even better than that, by excluding need for money and compliance with the law as credible explanations for Paul’s behavior. In order to arrive at your conclusion, you pretty much have excluded rationality from consideration. Paul’s behavior is inexplicable. If you adopt your argument that is. If you adopt mine, it’s perfectly reasonable.

Hmmm …

A completely false line of reasoning as noted previously. You've tried to put out a line about why Ron Paul might be doing this, but you've equally excluded all manner of actions which Ron Paul arguably could have more easily followed, which would defuse the entire question.

Now you're trying to say that I'm forcing a conclusion, ironic since you've tried to force a different conclusion via all manner of explanations.

You've tried legality - which is demonstrably irrelevant since we're talking about princple.

You've tried kookiness - which is also demonstrably weak given that the political consideration used to avoid said label would have yielded a far better outcome with a different action.

You've tried 'getting back what's his' - which plays poorly with the politician/consideration aspect as noted previously.

What's next?

As I've stated previously - while the above might be true, it is just as possible that less savory reasons or absolute randomness is involved. Maybe Ron Paul's financial manager applied for him as a matter of course. Maybe Ron Paul wanted a couple thousand extra bucks a month for a new kitchen.

The net of this is that 'might' don't mean anything.

We can judge only by what is done and not done.

Again you choose to debate a surrogate for my arguments rather than those I actually made. In fact only one of the three possibilities I cited need be true for my argument to be correct:

No, because your argument has to actually have evidence. Throwing out dozens of speculations is all nice and good, but without evidence cannot stand.

I've asked for said evidence and so far, nothing.

Thus while you are correct that you only need one of your suppositions to be correct to invalidate my question, you are incorrect in thinking that you can supply all these suppositions without evidence. Suppositions without evidence are worthless as they cannot be judged correct to any degree, because I can provide just as many negative suppositions which would be equally unsupportable.

Your preference apparently is to strike "or" and insert "and" in the first passage, and strike "at least one, maybe" from the second. Tacitly modifying what I actually said in attempt to discredit it is a real credibility killer.

This is amusing because you keep banging on the 'he might have' drum, but keep on failing to supply any evidence that I'm asking for.

As I noted above, I'm happy to consider your suppositions if you can provide some evidence of them. I've asked for this specifically, yet despite your failure to provide said evidence you somehow think that my credibility is damaged?

The bar is set for you: all you have to do to back up one of your many suppositions is to provide some evidence of one of them.

So long as you fail to do so, then these suppositions are simply not relevant.

More of the same. I count six occurrences of the string "principle" in my post, not counting quotes. Yet you repeatedly resort to allegations that I have failed to consider "principle". Exactly what principle we’re not sure. Except perhaps that principle that because Paul advocates ending Social Security, he should not accept its checks. Which, as pointed out before, is merely invoking circular argument by including your conclusion as a premise.

Because every single one of your alternate courses of action have zero evidence. A number of them have far easier alternate courses of action.

And while you apparently think that throwing out a bunch of suppositions is sufficient, I do not.

Given the choice between assuming that and assuming there’s no rational explanation for Paul’s action, there’s no contest. Your interpretation is compromised by the very assertion that it requires Paul to behave irrationally. In effect, you are accusing him not only of being unprincipled, but crazy, too.

Actually, it is not I who is making the assumption of rationality or irrationality.

Under my view, there are all sorts of reasons because of which Ron Paul's actions occur, and they aren't even all venal.

You are the one assuming that Ron Paul is being principled here. I'm asking you to show some evidence of it.

If you’re asking me to defend what MSNBC, the New York Times, or Bloomberg News might do with it, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Don’t forget MSNBC has already termed his views "crankish". It’s right there in your opening post.

I'm not asking for you to defend it, I'm asking you how you think Ron Paul's not accepting Social Security checks might be termed "kooky".

If you cannot substantiate in any way your allegation, then I take this to mean that this line of reasoning is invalid.

Sure, we both know the MSM is out to make copy, and having a wacky but lovable Texas politician is good copy. Still not clear at all why this matters - it isn't like Ron Paul isn't already labelled as kooky due to his Fed stance.

Yes.

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. And please don’t post yet another reply that accuses me of failing to consider "principle". It really is bad for your credibility.

Sure, I understand that you think Ron Paul's behavior here is principled in your view because of a whole series of unsupported alternate explanations.

What you're really saying is that you believe the man and are discounting the evidence.

Fair enough.

Again you are reminded that I have addressed the issue of principle throughout this debate. By what standard it fails is not clear, except perhaps that you don’t like it. Meanwhile, your selective wish to exclude other evidence like legality tells us more about the potency of the legality argument than it’s relevance.

I can only conclude from the ongoing focus on legality, that you conflate legality with principle.

From my view, legality is separate but partially overlapping with principle. I've repeatedly stated that Ron Paul isn't doing anything illegal, nor would he be doing anything illegal in not accepting Social Security checks.

Thus the point is once again that the question of principle in this matter has nothing to do with legality.

Your ongoing attempts to attack my credibility for failing to conform to your views on legality and principle - that's your own problem.

It sounds like you are starting to catch on. I think it’s highly unlikely that Paul thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme in every respect, that no differences between them could be found.

No, you are mistaking my repetition of your position - to show that I am hearing what you are saying - with agreement. You think Ron Paul is doing this, but you don't know.

If you do know, then please provide some evidence.

You’re getting delusional. You’ve been hammering on the notion that Paul equates Social Security with a Ponzi scheme for days. And now the possibility that might not fully be the case means nothing to your argument? If so, you have been blowing a lot of smoke!

Hardly, because you're building logic castles in the sand.

You start with assuming Ron Paul is principled. This is a wrong approach because it is circular.

You then seek out a means by which your belief can be confirmed. Fair enough.

However, to actually argue further, you have to provide some evidence. I've seen none so far.

Now you're trying to argue that I'm blowing smoke?

Paul is required to participate in it. And to expect him to participate in the part that takes money from him, but eschew the part that gives it back, on the basis of some vaguely enhanced definition of principle, well, that’s an opinion I don’t share.

Quite clear. Except that the "part that gives it back" isn't just what's his - it is others'. That's where the Ponzi comes in.

Ron Paul is a politician who opposes Social Security and has made inflammatory comments about it. What principle does this violate?

A televangelist who pays prostitutes is considered unprincipled. A vegetarian that eats a burger is considered unprincipled. An environmentalist who drives a Hum-V to work is considered unprincipled.

You don't consider opting out of the voluntary parts of Social Security unprincipled, the part where you get more than you paid in if you are a Boomer.

Fair enough.

It is a rhetorical device in a political context. That it is directed against an institution he opposes puts it in a similar place as his rhetoric against Social Security. Consistent with his views.

As I stated before, you think this might be the case. I'd like some evidence of that.

My point was that there are interpretations of the facts that are perfectly reasonable and which don’t lead to the conclusion that Paul is in violation of principle. In fact it’s harder to get to your conclusion without assuming Paul is nuts - after all for no apparent reason (he doesn’t need the money, he doesn’t have to in order to comply with the law…) he signed up for benefits from a program he paid into even though he advocates ending it.

When there are multiple interpretations of a set of facts, usually the rational thing to look for is the one that makes the most sense, not the one that requires the biggest stretches. And even then, you have no proof, just a hierarchy of likelihood. You haven’t made the case that Paul’s actions lack principle.

This problem with what you've stated above is that you are assuming Ron Paul is principled in all matters including this one, and that his actions in this particular area are all considered.

I disagree. No one considers all their actions in every context, nor is it possible to be principled in all matters.

As I noted previously - the explanation may well be accidental as opposed to venal or politically astute (your view).

The inability to call an unprincipled action for what it is means that even the accidental cause, much less the venal cause, won't be called out for correction.

For example: Ron Paul's financial manager has on his checklist: sign Ron Paul up for Social Security by submitting this form on his behalf. Ron Paul signs the form along with dozens of others that the financial manager passes to him. Ron Paul doesn't spend the time here to consider what he is doing. He's now exposed himself to the public dichotomy of his past and present strong statements against Social Security even as he accepts checks.

As I noted previously - all Ron Paul has to do to defuse even the appearance of impropriety is to lay out what exactly he is doing (and not doing). He could even get political capital out of it.

What is ludicrous and tortured is the way you twisted DSpencer's lucid analogy into a pretzel. Nowhere does he state that the person objects to eating meat. He doesn't like that animals have to be killed to get it. What is being objected to? Killing animals. If an animal is already dead and he eats it, he is not in violation of his principle.

I think it is amusing that you consider the tortured example worth defending.

Sure, lots of people like meat but hate killing animals. However, eating meat requires the killing of animals, and thus it is a hypocritical position to start with.

As for the government mandating the killing of animals, if you believe in your principles strongly enough, you just don't do it. You pay the fine or go to jail.

If you cannot pay the fine or cannot afford having jail time on your resume, you do it but in this case it is clearly under duress.

With Ron Paul and accepting Social Security checks - there is no duress, financial hardship, or anything except some amorphous possibility of 'kookiness'.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

C!ue, don't you understand that essentially everyone else on this thread says taking SS payments when you are against having SS in the first place is not a violation of principle. How much clearer can we be. You happen to disagree, which is fine, but don't keep trying to get us to agree with you when we clearly do not.

[c1ue]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

C!ue, don't you understand that essentially everyone else on this thread says taking SS payments when you are against having SS in the first place is not a violation of principle. How much clearer can we be. You happen to disagree, which is fine, but don't keep trying to get us to agree with you when we clearly do not.

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say.

My debate with Finster here in Rant 'N Rave is to understand his rationale - and so far I while I understand it, I don't agree with it.

If you don't want to read it, then please don't.

[Finster]

A Principle Of Your Own

Strange, I have repeated noted what I consider a possible violation of principle: the voluntary election to receive Social Security payments from a system which Ron Paul has publicly decried both as unconstitutional and a Ponzi scheme.

If in fact Ron Paul had made no such comments, then no issue of principle.

If repetition were enough to make something true, you’d be in pretty good shape by now. But I can do that, too: My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. Are you misinterpreting that to mean that there has been no accusation? It’s not. Of course you have made an accusation. It’s just that you've given nothing to back it up.

I mentioned the word libertarian first, but it was to clarify what you meant by idealist, …

You mentioned the word "idealist" first too.

… not what is/is not libertarian. It was you who decided to go large L small l - the extrapolation of which still didn't answer the original question of whether Ron Paul is an idealist or not. In reality, it doesn't matter if Ron Paul is an idealist or not.

If it doesn’t matter if Paul is an idealist or not, then why do we care whether I answered your question about it? And why are you still bringing it up?

I could argue that Ron Paul as a public figure who has created an image of himself has the responsibility to either correct said image or live up to what image exists, but frankly that isn't relevant here either.

Great. Then maybe we can put that behind us now.

Merely stating that there are multiple forms under which Ron Paul might practice his views does not actually say what his views are or whether they are being followed.

The facts are that he openly decries Social Security yet voluntarily signed up to get payments. His idealism or lack thereof isn't the question or even relevant. The question is if this dichotomy comprises a principled action.

And we’ve answered that thoroughly. No violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. You could even say no principle has been cited as violated by Paul.

I'm unclear what you're trying to say here. You brought up kookiness - implying that refusing to accept Social Security is/would be construed as kooky behavior.

Yet this is precisely the assignation of your personal view into this subject which you're accusing me of, because I see the decision (or even, non decision) to not receive Social Security checks as being a symbolic action and a principled one - and not the least bit kooky. Ron Paul's symbolic actions in other instances such as his Federal Pension recusal contrasts strangely with his Social Security actions.

Finally you accuse me of raising an issue I actually raised. Indeed, it is my position that if Paul behaved as you seem to wish, it would make it easier for his detractors to portray him as a kook.

I don’t see any evidence here that Paul has declined his federal pension, but if there were, the only charge you raise here is "strange". Why it is not possible to be both principled and strange we are left to guess. And we don’t even know the "strange" part unless you can rule out all non-strange explanations … you merely level vague charges and leave it to readers to do your homework for you.

As for principled or not - you assume that the voluntary decision to accept Social Security was for the purpose of "not being kooky". This is equally unsupported in any way.

All in all, kookiness is largely irrelevant. It might be a reason, but so can a host of others including hypocrisy, financial manager doing the election for him/Ron Paul being so wealthy that a couple thousand dollar Social Security checks are under his radar, etc etc etc.

I disagree. If you’re trying to succeed in politics, it’s pretty important to avoid giving the media fodder for portraying you as a kook. That would undermine, not advance, the cause of ending Social Security.

Fair enough. You don't think it is unprincipled for someone who calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme to accept payments from it.

Right.

There can be illuminating circumstances for both our positions which would likely change our views - the difference is your view is assuming the best of Ron Paul while mine makes no such assumption.

You assume that it is unprincipled for Paul to accept SS checks because he wants to end the program. I haven’t assumed anything resembling your value judgment, but even assuming arguendo I did, it’s not I who brought charges.

We're not talking about the objective rightness or wrongness of Social Security, if there is such a thing.

We're talking about Ron Paul's view of it. And it is clear what he thinks, and equally clear what he has done: he thinks badly of it, but he doesn't mind taking money from it.

You used the word "objective" here, not I. My position is that you can’t talk about Paul’s view of the rightness or wrongness of Social Security without invoking the rightness or wrongness of Social Security.

My view is that while it can be admirable for a person to try and stand aside from the entire monetary system of the society he lives in, that this course of action is not feasible for a politician. It isn't feasible for a politician because they are precisely a part of the political and legal system. For Ron Paul to stand aside from the Federal Reserve and everything associated with it would be to not just endure hardship but break any number of laws.

Break what laws? He could move to Antarctica if he wanted and eventually stand aside from the Fed, but that would also be yet another opportunity for the folks at MSNBC to portray him as a kook.

Still you haven’t articulated a basis for just how much hardship one should or should not endure to avoid being caught in your lack-of-principle net. Didn’t Nelson Mandela do a few years of jail time for his cause? Based on what little you’ve given us in terms of a standard of principle, it’s not at all obvious why Paul shouldn’t be cited for violation of principle if he does anything short of landing himself in prison. Exactly where shall we draw the line, and on what basis?

All we have so far is your subjective opinion. We know only that you don’t like where Paul drew the line.

As the 'kook' angle is purely subjective and that we have very different views on this, I'd say basing an argument on a subjective judgement isn't very helpful.

But that’s the whole problem. You have nothing but your subjective judgment to indict Ron Paul for lack of principle.

According to you under this line of reasoning, Ron Paul's acceptance of Social Security checks is principled because it preserves his credibility to affect systemic change.

It’s a bonus; my argument is complete without it. I think it might help explain Paul’s choice of the many options he has available to him, but even absent this factor you have still failed to make a case that Paul’s actions involve a failure of principle.

As I noted before, if this were the course of action Ron Paul is consciously undertaking, then he should be saying so.

Not at all. He only need mount a defense if a credible case of principle violation had been made.

While there is no 'right' position here which all must follow, the fact that even one person considers symbolic means that the action is, in fact, symbolic.

That’s a patently bizarre assertion: Paul’s action is symbolic because you declare it to be so.

If so, then it is not symbolic because I declare to be not so.

He could in fact use the question to build on his position with a 2nd sentence: "The amount which I have personally paid into the Ponzi Social Security scheme is $XXXX. I will recoup that in YY months, and everything from that point on is money forcibly extracted from other Americans."

Of course he could. It is one of many actions he could perform without violating principle. To go from there, however, and conclude that other actions violate principle merely because they aren’t this one, is a non-sequitor. 'Because one car is red, no other car may be red.' Another logical no-no.

Moreover, you assume that it is Paul’s responsibility to do the accounting necessary to establish the payment he is entitled to. That would be truly nutty of him, since SS has already done that for him. If you have a different formula, that’s your opinion. Don’t forget to include what rate of interest should be applied, to what extent taxes on his SS payments and other income should be considered, and whether CPI or ECI inflation adjustments should be applied.

Perhaps you can outline how a 'garden variety' Ponzi scheme is so much less criminal?

Had I asserted that some species of Ponzi scheme might be so much less criminal, that might be relevant.

You are again trying to equate legality with principle.

This has already been thoroughly addressed:

You assert that Paul finds no difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. But in order to do that you have take legality off the table. Selectively rejecting facts contrary to one’s position makes one’s position look weaker, not stronger.

This is why legality is an issue. You made it one by relying on a literal equation of SS and a Ponzi scheme. I rebut that by pointing out that SS is legal and a Ponzi scheme is not. And Paul knows that. If you withdraw the argument that Paul thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme, maybe we won’t need the legality consideration any more.

What’s more, legality itself is a principle. A specific kind of principle. And since you haven’t articulated any other basis of principle, that kind of leaves it wide open. The only other kind of principle apparent in your argument is the ‘it-bothers-me’ principle.

'Avoidance of kookiness' is thus a pretty weak defense - it makes all sorts of assumptions of careful consideration when in reality careful consideration would defuse this entire subject trivially via a single sentence.

An affirmative defense is not really necessary. First you must make a prima facie case that principle was violated. Avoidance of appearance of kookiness is icing on the cake.

A completely false line of reasoning as noted previously. You've tried to put out a line about why Ron Paul might be doing this, but you've equally excluded all manner of actions which Ron Paul arguably could have more easily followed, which would defuse the entire question.

Not merely could have followed, but which you insist he should have followed in order to meet some other standard of principle known only to you.

As I've stated previously - while the above might be true, it is just as possible that less savory reasons or absolute randomness is involved. Maybe Ron Paul's financial manager applied for him as a matter of course. Maybe Ron Paul wanted a couple thousand extra bucks a month for a new kitchen.

The net of this is that 'might' don't mean anything.

Okay, so we are somehow supposed to reach the conclusion that Ron Paul’s choice of action has violated some principle without consideration of the menu of alternative actions available to him?

The conviction keeps growing that really the only standard you have for deciding what information may be considered is whether it helps your case or not. If it casts doubt on your thesis, it’s irrelevant. Readers may note that only one of us is anxious to exclude so many items of evidence.

No, because your argument has to actually have evidence. Throwing out dozens of speculations is all nice and good, but without evidence cannot stand.

I've asked for said evidence and so far, nothing.

No it doesn’t. First, because you still haven’t made a case that rises to the level of meriting defense, and second because if someone says "if red, yellow, or blue, then true", only one of the three colors must be present to be true. You need all three only if it were required that "if red, yellow, and blue, then true". I recommend a course in Logic 101.

Thus while you are correct that you only need one of your suppositions to be correct to invalidate my question, you are incorrect in thinking that you can supply all these suppositions without evidence. Suppositions without evidence are worthless as they cannot be judged correct to any degree, because I can provide just as many negative suppositions which would be equally unsupportable.

Not if you’ve already cited one! No court in the land would demand a showing of evidence for something already stipulated by both parties.

This is amusing because you keep banging on the 'he might have' drum, but keep on failing to supply any evidence that I'm asking for.

As the accuser, it is incumbent upon you to first cite prima facie evidence. I need no evidence whatsoever until you have first provided some. Even though I have cited some anyway! It’s a good thing you are not a district attorney, because apparently you would smugly sit there and demand evidence the accused is innocent until the judge threw your case out.

In this case, though, it's even worse, because we don’t really even know the charges. Some principle has allegedly been violated, but we don’t know what it is. 'Your Honor, the Defendant is guilty of breaking the law. (You figure out what law.)'

Your ongoing attempts to attack my credibility for failing to conform to your views on legality and principle - that's your own problem.

I don’t have to do anything to undermine your credibility here. You are doing a fine job all by yourself. Every time you make a statement that anyone familiar with the record can easily determine to be unsupported or outright untrue. Things like arguing as if I raised the issues of "idealism" and "libertarianism", and debating against surrogates for my arguments instead of the real things.

This is amusing because you keep banging on the 'he might have' drum, but keep on failing to supply any evidence that I'm asking for.

As I noted above, I'm happy to consider your suppositions if you can provide some evidence of them. I've asked for this specifically, yet despite your failure to provide said evidence you somehow think that my credibility is damaged?

The bar is set for you: all you have to do to back up one of your many suppositions is to provide some evidence of one of them.

So long as you fail to do so, then these suppositions are simply not relevant.

Again I need yet prove nothing. In going as far as making alternative actions plausible, I’ve already done more than necessary. More about that later.

I'm not asking for you to defend it, I'm asking you how you think Ron Paul's not accepting Social Security checks might be termed "kooky".

Already covered this too:

If you’re asking me to defend what MSNBC, the New York Times, or Bloomberg News might do with it, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Don’t forget MSNBC has already termed his views "crankish". It’s right there in your opening post.

You start with assuming Ron Paul is principled. This is a wrong approach because it is circular.

I don’t, but if I did it would still be perfectly proper. Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Now you're trying to argue that I'm blowing smoke?

No, I’m pointing out that you’ve made a leap in logic that isn’t justified. In particular, that Paul actually believes SS and a Ponzi scheme are literally and totally identical; that no differences can be discerned. I note that Paul might be using a rhetorical device. And I don’t have to prove that; it only need be plausible. Because if there are alternative interpretations of Paul’s rhetoric, the facts don’t necessarily lead to your conclusion, leaving it not proved.

A televangelist who pays prostitutes is considered unprincipled. A vegetarian that eats a burger is considered unprincipled. An environmentalist who drives a Hum-V to work is considered unprincipled.

A televangelist who pays prostitutes is violating principle if paying prostitutes violates his canon. An environmentalist who drives a Hum-V to work violates principle if his cause holds driving a Hum-V to work to be wrong. A vegetarian that eats a hamburger isn’t a vegetarian.

Sure, lots of people like meat but hate killing animals. However, eating meat requires the killing of animals, and thus it is a hypocritical position to start with.

DSpencer went out of his way to stipulate that the person in question has no fundamental principle against eating meat, that he even likes it, and not even a religious objection to killing animals. You went out of your way to ignore it. In other words, he carefully drew a line between the eating of meat and the killing of animals, and carefully stipulated that even the killing of animals was distasteful, not necessarily morally wrong. In a similar vein, Paul objects to the government's running the Social Security program. He doesn't object to individuals collecting the payments they are due under it. The program shouldn't exist, but as long as it does, we play by its rules. With these lines, you fashioned pretzels.

Not only that, but your reasoning here assumes the only way an animal can become dead is to kill it. Some support for that highly dubious assumption is found wanting.

With Ron Paul and accepting Social Security checks - there is no duress, financial hardship, or anything except some amorphous possibility of 'kookiness'.

Plenty good enough against nothing but unsubstantiated charges of violating some amorphous notion of principle.

And once again, principle is not legality.

And once again, you haven’t given us an alternative basis of principle. It’s just not enough to flatly state what it isn’t. Heck, far as we know, there might even be one somewhere in the universe, but after umpteen prolix posts spanning days you’ve done nothing but leave us wondering.

I do see one clear violation of principle here: The principle that it’s incumbent on the one making the accusation to state the charges. But that’s your violation, not Ron Paul’s.

If not legality, what principle is it? The Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Is it the Golden Rule? The Code of Hammurabi? Is it the principle of increase of entropy? Is it in the Ten Commandments? In Emily Post's Etiquette? Is it bigger than a breadbox?

If you were to explain, for example, that the principle violated is that one should not both compare SS to a Ponzi scheme and get SS checks, there might be something to go on. Of course, this would just land you back in circularity territory. Check. Or if as your thread title suggests, the principle is one shouldn’t tell other people not to do something while doing the same oneself, we might have something. Of course, that would land you right back into the problem that Paul hasn’t done that. Check.

Even then, the best you could do is question whether a "more principled" course of action was available to him (Post #1). So from the get-go, you’ve admitted that you’re working with a scale of less principled to more principled, which implies Paul’s actions meet some standards of principle but allegedly not some other ones. And since they meet some standard of principle …

… well, this is where consideration of the broad menu of alternatives available to him comes into play. Where factors like whether something might make it easier for his detractors to portray him as kooky, whether something is legal or not, and to what extent personal sacrifice and hardship is involved, become relevant. And ultimately whether his choice is adequate according to one’s personal subjective judgment. By yours it’s not, my mine it is.

In fact I’m not aware of any other course of action that I’d rather Paul had taken. I think he should get his Social Security checks. I’m satisfied with the choice he has made.

Just my opinion.

And even on this scale of less principled to more principled, we don’t even have criteria by which to assess how principled, or objective guidance to evaluate where the line of acceptability is to be drawn.

Just your opinion.

It all boils down to this. You start a thread. You allege that Ron Paul is guilty of some failure of principle. You give us nothing in the way of what principle is violated, except maybe for two possibilities. The first one is nothing but your conclusion itself. The second one doesn’t fit the facts. The rest is nothing but personal opinion. Check mate.

...

[c1ue]

Re: A Principle Of Your Own

It all boils down to this. You start a thread. You allege that Ron Paul is guilty of some failure of principle. You give us nothing in the way of what principle is violated, except maybe for two possibilities. The first one is nothing but your conclusion itself. The second one doesn’t fit the facts. The rest is nothing but personal opinion. Check mate.

This is amusing - I've repeatedly stated what principle was violated: that a person who publicly has stated that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme - i.e. an illegal redistribution type pyramid scheme - would still participate in the payouts of same.

This isn't about Ron Paul wanting to end Social Security - never once have I noted that this is the conflict.

The conflict is the participation in the mechanics of a scheme which you personally believe and have publicly stated is unfair and wrong.

This seems quite clear to me. The exact same principle would apply to a person who decries slavery - back when slavery was legal in the US - but accepted dividends from a large slaveowning plantation.

You keep trying various directions here and there, but have not acknowledged that this is in fact a conflict. I've then examined some of these directions:

Some, including you, have noted that this participation - which incidentally is voluntary and not automatic - could be just for the purposes of regaining involuntary payments into said system. This could be a perfectly valid explanation, but the lack of clarification on Ron Paul's part makes this at best a hopeful assumption.

You've also said that this may be a case of hyperbole in support of a political goal. If so, the hyperbole has in fact hurt Ron Paul's cause due to the appearance of hypocrisy, and equally requires more clarification. Note that it was an MSM article that first put this possibility forward, not me - though the form of lack of principle which I speak of is different than what the MSM article is alluding to.

A third explanation you've put forward is that Ron Paul chose to receive his Social Security benefits in order to preserve his credibility as a politician by not appearing to be a kook. This explanation is more than a little weak, because Ron Paul has any number of other, far more obviously 'kooky' positions than this one. It is furthermore weakened by Ron Paul's election to opt out of the federal pension scheme - a situation very much similar to Social Security on the payout side, if not on the pay-in side.

A fourth explanation - one which I myself put forward as also possible - is that Ron Paul Social Security voluntary payout enlistment occurred without his active participation.

The reality? Ron Paul opted out of the Federal Pension Program - something he is fully entitled to - because he objects to the high rate of return paid by the program. It seems quite clear that this high rate of return is objectionable because it is redistributing taxpayer dollars to Congressional pensioners. See below.

How is the legalized Ponzi scheme called Social Security different? Ron Paul can't opt out of paying in, but he can opt out of the 'high rate of return' Ponzi payout.

Now for some details on your attempts to debate this:

If repetition were enough to make something true, you’d be in pretty good shape by now. But I can do that, too: My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. Are you misinterpreting that to mean that there has been no accusation? It’s not. Of course you have made an accusation. It’s just that you've given nothing to back it up.

I have repeatedly stated what I see as the conflict.

You have repeatedly stated that you don't consider it a conflict. At first I thought it might be a value systems difference, but it is clear now that you have assumed a completely incorrect position on my part - that I'm looking at Ron Paul's opposition to Social Security as a feature of the American economic and political system as opposed to Ron Paul's publicly expressed personal belief that Social Security is wrong.

The former is a political stance. You can believe affirmative action is wrong politically, but unless you're African American, it really doesn't matter. However, you are African American and voluntarily participated in affirmative action, there is at a minimum the appearance of hypocrisy if you are also publicly against it.

You mentioned the word "idealist" first too.

...

If it doesn’t matter if Paul is an idealist or not, then why do we care whether I answered your question about it? And why are you still bringing it up?

I asked to understand the context of your view. However, it appears the definition of either libertarian or idealist is irrelevant in your view - as your objections to my question of principle have nothing to do with these concepts. You don't consider Ron Paul being an idealist or not being an idealist matters in any way with his behavior.

I differ.

And we’ve answered that thoroughly. No violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. You could even say no principle has been cited as violated by Paul.

I've repeatedly cited the principle. You've repeatedly ignored what I've cited. Clearly a values mismatch. Later comments show that you're focusing on an entirely different aspect to the problem: you're fixated on the MSM spin which is that Ron Paul is taking payouts from Social Security even though he wants to end it. I've never even once mentioned this as the issue - my comments have always been: Ron Paul's elective personal participation in a payout scheme which he considers unfairly redistributive.

Finally you accuse me of raising an issue I actually raised. Indeed, it is my position that if Paul behaved as you seem to wish, it would make it easier for his detractors to portray him as a kook.

I don’t see any evidence here that Paul has declined his federal pension, but if there were, the only charge you raise here is "strange". Why it is not possible to be both principled and strange we are left to guess. And we don’t even know the "strange" part unless you can rule out all non-strange explanations … you merely level vague charges and leave it to readers to do your homework for you.

In fact this evidence was presented by aaron, and there is plenty of evidence easily found via the web:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...-paid-pensions

Representative Ron Paul, 76, has refused to participate in the federal system during his almost 22 years representing Texas in Congress.

‘It is Immoral’

“It is immoral that someone spend so much time in Congress that they even should think about getting retirement benefits,” Paul said in a 1997 release on his House website. “To expect those benefits to be paid by taxpayers at rates no citizen can ever hope to actually earn is even more unreasonable.”

Volley to you.

I disagree. If you’re trying to succeed in politics, it’s pretty important to avoid giving the media fodder for portraying you as a kook. That would undermine, not advance, the cause of ending Social Security.

The problem is that you're assumptively closing on the view that electing out of Social Security payouts would be construed as 'kooky'. I've already said that I don't consider such a symbolic action to be kooky, and furthermore you've only mentioned that the MSM might construe kookiness in this action as opposed to illustrate in any way a concrete line of reasoning by which Ron Paul's electing out of SS payments would be shown as kooky.

Your position is furthermore weakened because the MSM is already indirectly positioning Ron Paul as hypocritical by juxtaposing his acceptance of SS payments with his opposition to the program - an unsavory and unstated "I got mine but you won't get yours" type implication.

Lastly the reality is that Ron Paul already has made a public stance on his Federal Pension (non) election - so clearly not getting paid isn't a factor in his 'kookiness' calculation.

Thus trying to defend his actions in this case as being politically astute - seems like a losing effort to me.

You assume that it is unprincipled for Paul to accept SS checks because he wants to end the program. I haven’t assumed anything resembling your value judgment, but even assuming arguendo I did, it’s not I who brought charges.

Wrong - as I noted above, I have never once focused on Ron Paul's opposition to Social Security as a program. What I've focused on is the Ponzi scheme nature of it - redistribution is perfectly legal when enshrined as taxes, welfare, or any number of other government related feature.

However, redistribution at a personal level is theft - if you in fact have a moral objection, then the voluntary election to participate in same is in fact immoral.

Ron Paul by law must pay into Social Security. It is understandable why paying into Social Security is done despite a moral objection to redistribution because breaking the law is also immoral. However, receiving payments from redistribution is neither moral (if you object to involuntary redistribution) nor illegal.

You used the word "objective" here, not I. My position is that you can’t talk about Paul’s view of the rightness or wrongness of Social Security without invoking the rightness or wrongness of Social Security.

I disagree. The rightness or wrongness of Social Security as a program for all Americans is irrelevant in the context of Social Security with respect to Ron Paul alone. The former is a political issue - there is no legal issue as Social Security is a duly constituted part of American government and law. The latter is a personal moral issue.

As I've repeatedly noted: there are no choices in the pay-in aspect to Social Security, thus no room for moral choice unless you break the law. There are, however, choices in the payout aspect which are perfectly legal.

Break what laws? He could move to Antarctica if he wanted and eventually stand aside from the Fed, but that would also be yet another opportunity for the folks at MSNBC to portray him as a kook.

Still you haven’t articulated a basis for just how much hardship one should or should not endure to avoid being caught in your lack-of-principle net. Didn’t Nelson Mandela do a few years of jail time for his cause? Based on what little you’ve given us in terms of a standard of principle, it’s not at all obvious why Paul shouldn’t be cited for violation of principle if he does anything short of landing himself in prison. Exactly where shall we draw the line, and on what basis?

All we have so far is your subjective opinion. We know only that you don’t like where Paul drew the line.

Sorry, but you're stretching more than a little bit. As I've already noted previously, Federal Reserve Notes are to be accepted as legal tender for all debts, private or otherwise. For Ron Paul to opt out of the Federal Reserve system - which I hope you at least acknowledge includes FRNs - it would require him not only to not use them for payment to others, but to refuse them in receipt of payment. This is ridiculously impractical and furthermore is a overt breaking of the law.

Sure, there are plenty of instances where people have broken the law in order to try and affect change - however - Ron Paul has never exhibited any such tendencies. I for one have no difficulty seeing that Ron Paul is possibly the type of person who seeks to effect change within the system - which implies following the law.

There is still a space between following what you must do according to the law and following your principles in those many areas not explicitly mandated by the law - and we're talking about one of these spaces here.

But that’s the whole problem. You have nothing but your subjective judgment to indict Ron Paul for lack of principle.

...

It’s a bonus; my argument is complete without it. I think it might help explain Paul’s choice of the many options he has available to him, but even absent this factor you have still failed to make a case that Paul’s actions involve a failure of principle.

...

Not at all. He only need mount a defense if a credible case of principle violation had been made.

The problem with all of these comments is that your understanding of what I'm saying is apparently quite different - as noted above you're conflating my question of principle into the rightness/wrongness of Social Security in general, or into political appearance, or into 'getting back what's mine', or any number of other irrelevant topics. See above.

That’s a patently bizarre assertion: Paul’s action is symbolic because you declare it to be so.

If so, then it is not symbolic because I declare to be not so.

Hardly, because symbolism is a commutative property.

If you and 10,000 other people don't consider an action symbolic, but one person (I) do, the action is still symbolic even if just for me.

Of course he could. It is one of many actions he could perform without violating principle. To go from there, however, and conclude that other actions violate principle merely because they aren’t this one, is a non-sequitor. 'Because one car is red, no other car may be red.' Another logical no-no.

Moreover, you assume that it is Paul’s responsibility to do the accounting necessary to establish the payment he is entitled to. That would be truly nutty of him, since SS has already done that for him. If you have a different formula, that’s your opinion. Don’t forget to include what rate of interest should be applied, to what extent taxes on his SS payments and other income should be considered, and whether CPI or ECI inflation adjustments should be applied.

The error in this diatribe is that you're assuming that because other actions might constitute following principle, that Ron Paul's particular action is principled.

This is a logical error. All you demonstrate with your ongoing litany of alternate actions is 'what might be' - and as I've noted previously, these are accompanied by just as much 'what might not be'.

Or in other terms: you're saying Ron Paul's actions may be principled, but in reality you don't know. Ron Paul's actions may in fact be not principled.

This is why legality is an issue. You made it one by relying on a literal equation of SS and a Ponzi scheme. I rebut that by pointing out that SS is legal and a Ponzi scheme is not. And Paul knows that. If you withdraw the argument that Paul thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme, maybe we won’t need the legality consideration any more.

What’s more, legality itself is a principle. A specific kind of principle. And since you haven’t articulated any other basis of principle, that kind of leaves it wide open. The only other kind of principle apparent in your argument is the ‘it-bothers-me’ principle.

Yet again you're retreating into legality.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme in a strict unfair redistribution sense. However, while Social Security is a lawful program and thus legal, the reality of it being a Ponzi scheme does not end.

Legally Ron Paul is perfectly entitled to reap the unfair redistributive benefits of Social Security just as he was compelled to pay into SS - I've consistently acknowledged this is correct.

However, the legality of the Social Security Ponzi scheme does not change what Ron Paul believes. If he in fact believes it is an unfair redistributive scheme - then his personal acceptance of Social Security payouts is to personally benefit from theft.

Sure, as has been noted above, there are parameters around said acceptance which could change this personal reality - but no evidence of this has been put forward either by Ron Paul or by anyone else thus far.

An affirmative defense is not really necessary. First you must make a prima facie case that principle was violated. Avoidance of appearance of kookiness is icing on the cake.

See above. Kookiness still far from clear.

Not merely could have followed, but which you insist he should have followed in order to meet some other standard of principle known only to you.

You're again trying to say that the question being asked is somehow unique to me.

Reread above and try again. Do as you say is universal.

Okay, so we are somehow supposed to reach the conclusion that Ron Paul’s choice of action has violated some principle without consideration of the menu of alternative actions available to him?

The conviction keeps growing that really the only standard you have for deciding what information may be considered is whether it helps your case or not. If it casts doubt on your thesis, it’s irrelevant. Readers may note that only one of us is anxious to exclude so many items of evidence.

The conviction you have seems primarily to come from your desire to give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt.

I've laid out quite clearly what the question is - note that the original comment was a question.

No it doesn’t. First, because you still haven’t made a case that rises to the level of meriting defense, and second because if someone says "if red, yellow, or blue, then true", only one of the three colors must be present to be true. You need all three only if it were required that "if red, yellow, and blue, then true". I recommend a course in Logic 101.

Wrong.

You're trying to say that so long as there are possible alternative explanations, that there can be no violation of principle. All you do in providing possible alternative explanations is to raise doubt - but it doesn't actually prove the fact.

This legal defense works quite well under the American legal system, but unfortunately doesn't apply when trying to determine the truth.

Not if you’ve already cited one! No court in the land would demand a showing of evidence for something already stipulated by both parties.

This is exactly what I mean by over-focus on legality. Legal systems in general, and the American legal system in particular, are meant to determine guilt or innocence, they are not actually set up to determine truth.

As the accuser, it is incumbent upon you to first cite prima facie evidence. I need no evidence whatsoever until you have first provided some. Even though I have cited some anyway! It’s a good thing you are not a district attorney, because apparently you would smugly sit there and demand evidence the accused is innocent until the judge threw your case out.

In this case, though, it's even worse, because we don’t really even know the charges. Some principle has allegedly been violated, but we don’t know what it is. 'Your Honor, the Defendant is guilty of breaking the law. (You figure out what law.)'

Again the retreat into legality. And again, I note that I was/am seeking the truth - hence the posing of the original question.

You, on the other hand, are trying to cast enough doubt to obscure the fact that you already have an assumption of what the truth is. This, however, isn't seeking the truth - it is justifying your preconception.

I don’t have to do anything to undermine your credibility here. You are doing a fine job all by yourself. Every time you make a statement that anyone familiar with the record can easily determine to be unsupported or outright untrue. Things like arguing as if I raised the issues of "idealism" and "libertarianism", and debating against surrogates for my arguments instead of the real things.

The reality is that you are the one attacking credibility.

I've never once attacked yours - I asked a simple question and then listened to the answers.

All through this discussion you've done nothing but try to justify your preconception. I've asked you for evidence behind each of your alternate explanations, but so far you've failed to provide them.

Thus at this point I've already acknowledged that one or more of these alternate explanations may be true - and in fact have added one more - but the reality is still the same: we don't know if Ron Paul's acceptance of Social Security payouts is principled, but the possibility that it is not remains.

The appearance of lack of principle also exists - perhaps not for you but clearly for at least 2 people - and Ron Paul might consider clarification to remove this appearance.

This too is the purview of a politician.

Again I need yet prove nothing. In going as far as making alternative actions plausible, I’ve already done more than necessary. More about that later.

...

Already covered this too:

...

I don’t, but if I did it would still be perfectly proper. Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

...

No, I’m pointing out that you’ve made a leap in logic that isn’t justified. In particular, that Paul actually believes SS and a Ponzi scheme are literally and totally identical; that no differences can be discerned. I note that Paul might be using a rhetorical device. And I don’t have to prove that; it only need be plausible. Because if there are alternative interpretations of Paul’s rhetoric, the facts don’t necessarily lead to your conclusion, leaving it not proved.

Already covered this as well. Legality and raising doubt isn't the truth.

Rhetoric devices - also irrelevant. Because even were this true, the fact that having done so opened up potential lines of attack on Ron Paul's acceptance of Social Security payouts shows that at a minimum the rhetorical device was a bad idea. Which then severely strains the 'avoiding kookiness' political play you also threw out.

A televangelist who pays prostitutes is violating principle if paying prostitutes violates his canon. An environmentalist who drives a Hum-V to work violates principle if his cause holds driving a Hum-V to work to be wrong. A vegetarian that eats a hamburger isn’t a vegetarian.

You know full well what I speak of: individuals who say one thing but do another.

DSpencer went out of his way to stipulate that the person in question has no fundamental principle against eating meat, that he even likes it, and not even a religious objection to killing animals. You went out of your way to ignore it. In other words, he carefully drew a line between the eating of meat and the killing of animals, and carefully stipulated that even the killing of animals was distasteful, not necessarily morally wrong. In a similar vein, Paul objects to the government's running the Social Security program. He doesn't object to individuals collecting the payments they are due under it. The program shouldn't exist, but as long as it does, we play by its rules. With these lines, you fashioned pretzels.

Not only that, but your reasoning here assumes the only way an animal can become dead is to kill it. Some support for that highly dubious assumption is found wanting.

DSpencer's example was ridiculous because it is completely irrelevant. He conflated eating meat with accepting money. Unfortunately the provenance of money matters - that's why we consider banksters to be bad. The assumptive close in his analogy was both that meat is meat (i.e. money is money), and that a moral objection to killing animals is perfectly consistent with a practice of eating meat - i.e. that getting paid is great but the means of getting paid is separate. Neither analogy works.

As for your newest assumption: that Ron Paul objects to the program but doesn't object to individuals getting paid under it. This possibility is completely nullified by his opting out of the Federal Pension Program - clearly he does object to individuals getting paid other people's money under a legal program which he objects to.

[Ghent12]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

Ron Paul does not advocate not cashing SS checks. He advocates abolishing the system. I don't see the conflict. Since he is forced to play by the current rules, and has paid into the system, why not collect?

+1

This is the logical conclusion of the discussion, really. It has nothing to do with "needing" the money. He paid in, he played by the rules, he wants those rules changed, but he also collects.

It is not a violation of any principle he has to collect money he is owed. Maybe if he espoused that money itself should be completely abolished, or that nobody should collect from social security, then he would be acting outside of his principles. As it is, however, he is well within his typical principled stance to collect from a system he both wants abolished and has paid into. Whatever asshat created the title of this thread is wrong.