Bill Maher Stands Up For Ron Paul & Calls His Audience Brainwashed Liberals

deprave said:

If you are a christian there is a lot wrong with pagans who enslave and murder (YES MURDER) people....

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure how you equate polytheism with slavery and murder. Don't forget, it was Christians who enslaved people in America. The Jews were monotheists and they found slavery to be an acceptable practice at the time. Everyone did regardless of religion.

Christians did not do this at the time because there were no christian countries and Christianity wasn't a religion for another several hundred years. But when Rome because a Christian country, they had no problem with slavery and murder still.

Roman pagans didn't behave particularly different from any other culture at this time. All these things were common practice and did not end with Christianity. The only thing separating Romans from other civilizations were they were better fighters and engineers. Religion had little to do with it. All of the christian emperors that are glorified in the bible all had slaves. Constantine included. He also killed far more people than Caesar. Not just battles either. Saint Constantine murdered people with his own hands, including 6 members of his own family. The guy killed his own wife and child. He was definitely a christian.

The Romans also murdered and persecuted christians I believe that is in the bible.

Click to expand...

Sure, but not Caesar. That didn't start until Nero. Julius Caesar was dead before Jesus was born and Augustus Caesar was unaware of their existence.

It should also be noted that the Roman empire are also responsible for creating the religion of Christianity and putting together the bible in the form we know it today. When you read the bible, you're reading a book originally put together by emperor Constantine.

Further, I am not so sure about casear in pariticuliar, but they are guilty of many sins in the christian view; gluttony, lust, and so on was seen as acceptable behavior.

Click to expand...

Definitely. But it didn't start that way. It wasn't until Rome conquered Carthage and Greece did the excess really start. Paganism predates that by a few thousand years so....

I am agnostic so I am no entirely confident in saying all of this but I know this is what christians believe generally speaking.

Click to expand...

Well christians tend to believe their own version of history that is written from the point of view of the church. They might see things a certain way, but that doesn't mean that's how it went down or it is the only side of the story. Christians persecuted and enslaved pagans when they were in power too. And were just as excessive once christianity became an official religion.

I will say this. Ron Paul did come up with an idea that I think is truly brilliant. A 100% tax credit for every dollar a person spends on health care. LOVE that idea.

Dan Kone said:

I will say this. Ron Paul did come up with an idea that I think is truly brilliant. A 100% tax credit for every dollar a person spends on health care. LOVE that idea.

Click to expand...

If we had an economy with a flat consumption tax we could prevent the government from getting a free loan from every taxpayer.

Dan Kone said:

Not really. I get what you're saying though. It is true that the Roman government didn't ever actually collect taxes themselves until the Diocletian reforms. Rather than that they'd have people bid to collect taxes, and the bid would be the tax money the government collected. Then the tax collectors would go out collecting taxes, keeping as profit any amounts they could collect higher than that bid. But Roman citizens themselves at that time were not subjected to taxes. So when a Roman senator had a massive slave run farm, he didn't pay any taxes on that at all. No property nor income taxes. Taxes were for the people in the territories they conquered, but they did not tax Roman citizens like that.

And no, they did not subsidize farms. Rome itself was very much a free market economy. You could buy/sell pretty much anything (even your children) and the government took no interest. Rome itself suffered from constant food shortages, and the food they did have was extremely expensive because Roman senatorial farmers (they owned pretty much all Italian farm land at that point which was worked by slaves) found it more profitable to grow olives and grapes, then export those goods to Greece, rather than farm grain for the masses.

Their free market economy ended up benefiting the senators very much, and left everyone else starving. This is the reason Caesar went to Egypt and installed Cleopatra on the throne. Egypt was the only place around that grew enough food to feed Rome.

You've gotten some inaccurate information.

Click to expand...

Subsidies is probably not the correct word but they traded grain up to a certain ammount and any more was taxed(not under Augustus but following him). I have read this in quite a few places but to say its innaccurate or something is not really fair to be honest we are talking about Rome. I google'd a bit and didn't turn up much but I only had 10 minutes to spare. You know it is kind of funny you defend the lasiez faire guy lol but anyway....Casear birthed the nanny state of Rome which ultimately led to its downfall and thats that. Casear great emperor sure, better than many if not all, but I can not possibly defend the state something I don't believe will ever or has ever had the interest of mankind ultimately and must be kept at bay. It is impossible for me to think well of any state because I believe the state is the enemy of man and one of two great evils, at the root of these evils I believe is money.

deprave said:

Subsidies is probably not the correct word but they traded grain up to a certain ammount and any more was taxed(not under Augustus but following him). I have read this in quite a few places but to say its innaccurate or something is not really fair to be honest we are talking about Rome.

Click to expand...

They did eventually tax Roman farmers, but that came much later. Once the Caesars took over, Rome's food supply came for the most part from Egypt. As long as they held Alexandria, there were never any problems with it. But yes, under the Diocletian reforms they surveyed all the property of the empire and charged everyone units of tax based on your profession and how much you could produce. A farmer paid his taxes via percentage of whatever crop he produced. A tailor paid his tax in shirts for the army. etc.

You know it is kind of funny you defend the lasiez faire guy lol but anyway....

Click to expand...

It's what the times called for due to the unseemly concentration of wealth at the top.

Casear birthed the nanny state of Rome which ultimately led to its downfall and thats that.

Click to expand...

Actually it led to Rome's golden ages first under Augustus then under the Antonine dynasty. The Roman empire lasted 1500 hundred years after Caesar. The republic lasted ~500 years for perspective. So the "downfall" he led to lasted 3 times as long as the republic did. As far as downfalls go, 1500 years is a pretty sweet downfall. That's longer than any government in the history of the world. So if by downfall you mean unprecedented success, I agree.

Casear great emperor sure, better than many if not all, but I can not possibly defend the state something I don't believe will ever or has ever had the interest of mankind ultimately and must be kept at bay. It is impossible for me to think well of any state because I believe the state is the enemy of man and one of two great evils, at the root of these evils I believe is money.

Click to expand...

So you're advocating anarchy?

Dan Kone said:

So you're advocating anarchy?

Click to expand...

First off, If I was then so what? I am not. I am advocating left libertarianism. I am advocating for people over government and the private sector. Left Anarchist philosophies are better than authoritarianism in my view, left, centrist, or right wing sure but I do recognize the need for some government in certain scenarios.

Now back to the point since you obviously did not grasp this. My point is that Casear could of been a saint or a prophet for all I care he was for the State and not for the people no matter his intentions I just don't believe people ever really NEED government so much so that they are helpless and that they are "SAVED" by it like you do. I believe you said something like "omgz people were just dieing in the streets starving they couldn't do anything they were so helpless than casear came and rescued them it was like a knight in shining armor omgzsauce" (paraphrasing). Respectfully, this is just not something I believe. I am simply trying to explain libertarian train of thought to you in an exaggerated fashion and mean no disrespect.

If you want to talk about how Casear was a good man because of his successes as a dictator who created a great nanny state that says to me he was good enslaving people. I just don't view the world that way, the state needs to be limited and controlled.