OK, you’re breaking your back trying to defend him, and the gymnastics are making you look weird. If Ron Paul thinks a congressman works harder and deals with more shit than the president, then not only is he unfit to be president, but he is unfit to be a congressman.
You can absolutely abhor any given president we have sitting in office, but to say a bus driver should get paid more than the so-called leader of the free world says something about your understanding of what constitutes fairness.
Well, I’m sure Paul wants the free market to decide what presidency pays. Somehow.
On the contrary. You’re performing gymnastics to cast him as a hypocrite. We’ve been over this notion many times on this MB. If you disapprove of taxes, you are not a hypocrite by taking advantage of things those taxes provide. Firstly, you are paying into that system, it’s a system you cannot change by your own will, and it’s virtually impossible to live in this society without driving on roads or doing any number of things that those taxes provide. The key thing is that you work towards changing the system, which is exactly what he is doing. You don’t see him proposing any new taxes do you?
Well, we don’t know what his position is. I was asking you, since you seemed to know what he thought a president should make. But keep in mind that in RP’s view, the president shouldn’t be dealing with much of what he currently does. That might make him a little nutty, but that doesn’t make him a hypocrite or make his stance inconsistent.
But RP doesn’t think the US president should be the leader of the free world.
John Mace, do you a cite for how “groups” is defined?
I don’t have a cite for what RP meant when he said that, but I think it’s pretty clear that he meant it in its most general sense-- ie, any group of people. Taking money (wealth) from any person or group of persons to give it to another person or group of persons. Not for “services rendered”, but for the purpose of redistributing wealth. Note that this does not rule out the voluntary transfer of wealth (ie, charitable actions), but rather having the government be an agent of force in the transaction. That’s pretty boilerplate Libertarianism.
Did you think he meant something different?
Well I’m just trying to pin down what a group is. Say the city of Pasadena votes in a millage to upgrade their sidewalks for use of local residents. If you live there, are you morally required to tell visiting family “oh you have to walk in the grass or the road. If you use the sidewalk, it’s theft”?
Or is he talking about direct cash payments like college assistance, food assistance, or the like?
I would say the latter. He’s nutty, but not that nutty. 
I’m not aware of any Libertarian position that would fit your first scenario, unless it were to involve some sort of fee imposed on outsiders to enter the city.
What other kind of transfer of money is there, other than from one group of people to another? I’m baffled at how that could be a meaningful criterion.
Is it really hard to understand the difference between me buying a book from Amazon.com and the government taxing me to provide food stamps for other people?
I think he deliberately made it as vague as possible to draw in the greatest number of supporters.
I doubt it. Say what you will about Ron Paul, he’s not afraid of taking unpopular and controversial positions. If you know anything at all about Libertarianism, what he says makes perfect sense. You don’t have to agree with it to understand it.
Let me tell you what I know about Libertarianism-Every damn time someone starts a thread about an aspect of it, we get a bunch of “You’re a hater and you’re just trying to trap us” posts and an almost equal number of “This question is silly because different Libertarians will have different answers” posts.
I have no idea what that has to do with anything I’ve posted in this thread. If you have some issues with other posters on this MB, you can take them up with them. I’ve been trying my best to give honest, thoughtful answers to questions posed in this thread. If that hasn’t been good enough for you, I give up.
Believe it or not, this thread isn’t about you, and my response was rather obviously targeting Libertarians at large on this board(and elsewhere), not just you. If you wish to stand up and say, “Just go with my definitions and understandings about Libertarianism-don’t be confused with what other Libertarians say” the next time a thread on Libertarianism pops up, please feel free to do so-the responses should be rather amusing.
But you and I have been discussing this, and you suddenly launched into an attack on the board’s libertarians in response to my post. Hence my request for you to take it up with them.
No thanks. I’ve posted in this thread from what I know about Libertarianism. I have indicated where I thought some might disagree or have an alternate position. Whether or not I choose to participate in other threads on the subject isn’t influenced by your perception of libertarian posters on this MB.
As far as a Libertarian position on the transfer of wealth from one group to another… it is mainstream Libertarian thought that it is not the government’s role to do that. If other posters have confused you about Libertarian positions, it might be best to do some research on your own rather than rely on what you feel are weasely posters here.
You can start here, and I’ll give the quote relevant to this thread:
Emphasis added.
If you would like to make an argument that Ron Paul is a hypocrite because of these two points, then I may argue against it. And then we’ll have a debate (what this forum is supposedly about).
If a member of my group health insurance policy falls ill and requires surgery that the insurance pays for, is that a “wealth transfer” as you use the term, JM? Does it matter to the question whether I entered the insurance policy voluntarily or not?
If the answers are no and no, then the argument seems to beg the question somewhat.
Private insurance is a voluntary purchase that individuals make. It has nothing to do with the government, and I am sure RP would have no problem with it.
If you are required to have insurance by the government, then it is no longer voluntary, it’s in the same category as a tax, and I’m sure RP would consider your premiums to be “theft”.
Again, that is mainstream Libertarian thinking. No surprises if you know even the rudimentary aspects of Libertarian philosophy.
You correctly state Libertarian philosophy, but fail to answer my question. You’re trying to distinguish certain kinds of government spending as “wealth transfers” unlike other government spending. So I’m trying to get a more rigorous definition of your term.
I explicitly answered your question. Here it is in simplified form:
No, if it is a private insurance plan, entered into voluntarily.
Yes, it matters.
So, my answers are not “no and no”.
Is there still a question that is being begged, or have the goal posts moved?