USA - American Libertarianism - Dr. Ron Paul

[enquirewithin]

As Chomsky (a true libertarian) says, Paul is an ultra nationalist. True change can be achieved by voting but Paul is not the solution to any problems.

Small government may be desirable in the long run, but right now that would mean that corporations would enjoy unfettered power.

[Coconut]

I'm not sure if it even matters who wins the US presidential election. The position of President is also the position of Puppet.

Ron Paul seems to be the most favourable of all of the candidates - the least of the many evils.

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

Small government may be desirable in the long run, but right now that would mean that corporations would enjoy unfettered power.

Corporations often do enjoy unfettered power. Governments and corporations are one and the same in much of the Western World, especially in the United States. This is corporatism, also known as fascism.

[El Calico Loco]

It's unfair to call him a con-man, Nature Boy. Persons of high morals and intellect can still disagree on issues without one of them having to be corrupt or insane. I'd bet real money that his voting record is more consistent over time than any other Congressman; you might disagree with his philosophy, but he's not pretending.

Bajeda: Sorry, I forgot to mention Kucinich.

Chomsky is a brilliant man, but damned if he isn't a mess of contradictions in his dotage. He's supposed to be some kind of socialist anarchist, believing in small, local communitarianism, yet he never fails to oppose decentralization or to push for large government bureaucracies dedicated to solving social problems. He should be smart enough to know that the Social Security trust fund is the biggest lie in DC - the politicians spent the money as fast as they got it.

(The trust fund consists of nothing but US Treasury bonds, which basically amounts to an IOU from one branch of the government to another. Today's workers are paying for today's retirees, and the same will be true tomorrow. And that's just one issue.)

I don't agree with Ron Paul - or other libertarians - on everything. He's from the conservative wing of the libertarians, while I hail from the progressive side. I disagree with the paleolibs on immigration, resource taxation, and the gold standard. All in all, however, I agree with Dr. Paul far more than I agree any of the other pandering salesmen currently running for President.

And he would do his damndest to end the Federal War on Drugs. We'd still have to change state laws, but that would be a huge step in the right direction. That's a bit stronger than Obama's musing that maybe we ought not to lock up medical marijuana users.


ECL

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

It's unfair to call him a con-man, Nature Boy. Persons of high morals and intellect can still disagree on issues without one of them having to be corrupt or insane. I'd bet real money that his voting record is more consistent over time than any other Congressman; you might disagree with his philosophy, but he's not pretending.

Bajeda: Sorry, I forgot to mention Kucinich.

Chomsky is a brilliant man, but damned if he isn't a mess of contradictions in his dotage. He's supposed to be some kind of socialist anarchist, believing in small, local communitarianism, yet he never fails to oppose decentralization or to push for large government bureaucracies dedicated to solving social problems. He should be smart enough to know that the Social Security trust fund is the biggest lie in DC - the politicians spent the money as fast as they got it.

(The trust fund consists of nothing but US Treasury bonds, which basically amounts to an IOU from one branch of the government to another. Today's workers are paying for today's retirees, and the same will be true tomorrow. And that's just one issue.)

I don't agree with Ron Paul - or other libertarians - on everything. He's from the conservative wing of the libertarians, while I hail from the progressive side. I disagree with the paleolibs on immigration, resource taxation, and the gold standard. All in all, however, I agree with Dr. Paul far more than I agree any of the other pandering salesmen currently running for President.

And he would do his damndest to end the Federal War on Drugs. We'd still have to change state laws, but that would be a huge step in the right direction. That's a bit stronger than Obama's musing that maybe we ought not to lock up medical marijuana users.


ECL

I'm not sure whether Paul is sincere or not. Whether his ideas are useful or not is another matter. As for Chomsky, as far as understand him, he is an anarcho-syndicalist. I think if you read his ideas further, he is really contradicting himself. As c0c0nut rightly says, corporations do enjoy almost unfettered power (Chomsky calls them 'tyrannies'). Currently we need more government intervention to curb their power, but small government should be the aim. Right wing advocates of small government such as Milton Friedman (who also believed in legalizing drugs) wanted to give everything to corportaions. When he was allowed to put his theories into practice in Chile, the results were horrendous (see Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine).

[El Calico Loco]

If you want to talk economics, I think both sides have it wrong. It's a bit off-topic, however, so I'll just direct you to the theory I like.


ECL
(It's backed up by solid, empirical evidence from around the world.)

[BEEKSc1]

Chomsky is groovy
The man is like a sponge; he knows so much

Is Ron Paul against universal healthcare?; it would seem like he would be, but I though I remember him talking of "ensuring healthcare for all"

[enquirewithin]

On the subject of Paul's moral integrity, I came across an article.

It appears that Paul may have a murky past of intolerant bigotry.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle19027.htm

[El Calico Loco]

That was a nasty hit piece, cleverly timed. Here is Ron Paul's answer to it:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-rel...ld-newsletters

I don't believe that Dr. Paul is a racist, anti-semite, or homophobe. The writer of the TNR article even said as much:

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/200...n-paul-is.html

At the same time, I do find the revelation depressing. He had to have been clueless to not know what was being done in his name, and this could hurt more than his campaign - it could conceivably taint the entire libertarian movement in the eyes of average people.

All I can say is, compare it to the skeletons in all other candidate's closets. This is the worst they could dig up.


ECL
(I mean, Fred Thompson is an actor...he must have murdered a hooker and burned down a hotel in a coke-addled delirium at some point... )

[enquirewithin]

Allowing some people to print racist views under his name is admittedly mild comparing to supporting a war in which perhaps over a million have died (Hillary) or wanting to wage even more wars (McCain), but it may illustrate that Paul's brand of 'libertarianism' is not what the world needs?

[El Calico Loco]

Heh...Some of Paul's strongest supporters are the writers over at LewRockwell.com. I like the site, and enjoy many of the editorials, but the denizens are a bit too obsessed with the Civil War for my taste. Sure, the states had every right to secede; sure, every other Western nation got rid of slavery without a war; but damn, guys - it was 150 years ago. I prefer to focus on today.

(And many of them are so fucking uptight. They seem to despise every form of non-square culture, from hippies to punk rock to hip hop.)

I guess it's up to me to try and swing lovers of liberty more to the geoist side. Now there's an economic program that deserves as much experimentation as capitalism, Marxism, and The Third Way have had over the past two centuries. It has worked wonders in the few places it has been tried. It's led not only to economic growth, but also to a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth.


ECL

[Bajeda]

I'd rather just leave it alone as I have enough on my plate already, but I do still think the little red book allusion was unwarranted, though that is a personal preference, as such comments just remind me of McCarthyism and all the stupidity that went along with it.

[Nature Boy]

I couldn't resist adding this little gem.

Ron Paul on Evolution

Bats, like Huckabee.

[El Calico Loco]

I'll take someone who doesn't believe in evolution over someone who does believe in dropping bombs on people all over the world. At least Dr. Paul won't force his beliefs on others at the point of a gun.

For amusement, take a look at this MoJo article about Herself's religious beliefs:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ys-prayer.html


ECL

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I couldn't resist adding this little gem.

Ron Paul on Evolution

Bats, like Huckabee.

Nice one!What an intellect!

[x cynic x]

So Swim is starting to disapprove of Dr. Ron Paul and he knows this could be a bit off-topic, but he was wondering what would happen to everyone below the poverty line if extreme libertarianism subjugated our government. Swim would love to have actual privacy in his life but would not want struggling families to be denied of welfare. Would we be forced to genocide the homeless, as to spare them the pain of starvation? Swim also loved the geolibertarian philosophy, but it seems like survival of the fittest for the economically unfortunate. Swim just needs alittle bit of education on how the wealth would be distributed equally. Some people are more intelligent than others, and have better work ethics too, so wouldn't they deserve to earn a greater amount of cash then the indolent, simpletons who contribute much less to the society?

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by x cynic x

So Swim is starting to disapprove of Dr. Ron Paul and he knows this could be a bit off-topic, but he was wondering what would happen to everyone below the poverty line if extreme libertarianism subjugated our government. Swim would love to have actual privacy in his life but would not want struggling families to be denied of welfare. Would we be forced to genocide the homeless, as to spare them the pain of starvation? Swim also loved the geolibertarian philosophy, but it seems like survival of the fittest for the economically unfortunate.

I find it amusing that you use the word "subjugated", when that's exactly what most libertarians are fighting against: subjugation of the average citizen by those who hold the reins of government. Having the right to choose our masters every few years isn't much of a choice, imho.

But it is a valid point. In my opinion, pure capitalism, as described by the right-wing libertarians, would probably lead to a new aristocracy and feudalism. I think it would take a very long time - perhaps a century or more - to get there, on account of competition, but I think it would happen eventually. In the meantime, commoners would be doing far better than they are under the current American system, which is basically a huge scam that transfers wealth from the middle class to bankers and landowners while buying off the poor with a few scraps.

Letting government spend money instead of ordinary people might lead to less disparity via social programs (the scraps I mentioned), but it also leads to dependence, enriches those with government connections (defense contractors, Halliburton, Blackwater), and does nothing to address the fundamental causes of poverty.

The geoists agree with the libertarians that government meddling in the economy generally leads to bad results, but they part ways with them on the subjects of land and money. Land - in the economic sense, meaning all natural resources, the sea, the sky, and space itself - is the only monopoly that matters. They want to make those who hold land pay taxes equal to the economic rent, use that money to provide public services, and get rid of all other taxes (income, sales, etc) that distort the economy and rob those of us at the bottom. This has the positive side effect of discouraging real estate speculation, one of the primary causes of economic downturns (see the current sub-prime mortgage debacle).

They want to reform the US monetary system as well, recognizing - as does Dr. Paul - that it is a huge scam. Unlike Dr. Paul, however, they generally don't support the gold standard. They recognize that money is nothing more than what people believe it is. It doesn't have to be based on a commodity to be sound; it just has to be taken from the paws of the inflation junkies. Stephen Zarlenga has a good website on the subject.

Geolibertarians take the best ideas from the progressive, green, and libertarian ideologies. Their patron saint is Thomas Paine. It's a small movement at the moment, but growing.


ECL

[zera]

Originally Posted by x cynic x

So Swim is starting to disapprove of Dr. Ron Paul and he knows this could be a bit off-topic, but he was wondering what would happen to everyone below the poverty line if extreme libertarianism subjugated our government. Swim would love to have actual privacy in his life but would not want struggling families to be denied of welfare. Would we be forced to genocide the homeless, as to spare them the pain of starvation? Swim also loved the geolibertarian philosophy, but it seems like survival of the fittest for the economically unfortunate. Swim just needs alittle bit of education on how the wealth would be distributed equally. Some people are more intelligent than others, and have better work ethics too, so wouldn't they deserve to earn a greater amount of cash then the indolent, simpletons who contribute much less to the society?

What makes you think that just because you end publicly funded welfare that people would starve. Since Welfare Reform was passed in 1996 (by Bill Clinton btw), massive numbers of people have been moved off of welfare. Welfare enrollment has dropped by 57% nationwide, and in some states by very large numbers (Illinois dropped by 86%). Yet child poverty rates for blacks are at the lowest levels since the 1960s. Even if you say this isn't due to welfare reform the evidence is pretty clear that ending welfare will by no means result in mass starvation. Poverty in the US is nowhere close to starvation, the poor in the US have the opposite problem, being overweight. Remember that poverty in the US would be considered opulent affluence in Africa and most other parts of the world.

And this doesn't even take into consideration how much the government hurts the poor. A lot of people contend that welfare increases poverty, because it creates an entrenched bureaucracy whose livelihood is dependent on large number of welfare recipients. Think about it, the deputy directory for a regional welfare office doesn't want to get people off the dole, because that will mean less power and influence for his department. In addition welfare gives many negative incentives that discourage economic development. Rising rates of illegitimacy in the black community can be directly tied to welfare's policy of giving aid to single mothers.

Then you factor in the effect of the drug war on inner city neighborhoods, turning them into warzones, the effect of zoning, business licensing requirements and regulations that stop poor entrepreneurs, the miserable state of the public housing and education systems, as well as all the taxes the poor pay (including many highly regressive taxes, like sales tax, cigarette tax, utilities taxes and gasoline tax) and I am confident that a greatly reduced government would be on a whole an incredible net gain for the poor.

Its easy for the rich to sidestep the government's incompetence and oppressiveness. They can afford attorneys who can get drug charges thrown out, they can send their kids to private school when the public schools are failing, they have friends on the city commission that can get them around some zoning requirement, they can hire tax accountants who can find some loophole. The poor don't have these luxuries, so when the government fucks up, its really them that get screwed.

[x cynic x]

Originally Posted by zera

What makes you think that just because you end publicly funded welfare that people would starve. Since Welfare Reform was passed in 1996 (by Bill Clinton btw), massive numbers of people have been moved off of welfare. Welfare enrollment has dropped by 57% nationwide, and in some states by very large numbers (Illinois dropped by 86%). Yet child poverty rates for blacks are at the lowest levels since the 1960s. Even if you say this isn't due to welfare reform the evidence is pretty clear that ending welfare will by no means result in mass starvation. Poverty in the US is nowhere close to starvation, the poor in the US have the opposite problem, being overweight. Remember that poverty in the US would be considered opulent affluence in Africa and most other parts of the world.

And this doesn't even take into consideration how much the government hurts the poor. A lot of people contend that welfare increases poverty, because it creates an entrenched bureaucracy whose livelihood is dependent on large number of welfare recipients. Think about it, the deputy directory for a regional welfare office doesn't want to get people off the dole, because that will mean less power and influence for his department. In addition welfare gives many negative incentives that discourage economic development. Rising rates of illegitimacy in the black community can be directly tied to welfare's policy of giving aid to single mothers.

Then you factor in the effect of the drug war on inner city neighborhoods, turning them into warzones, the effect of zoning, business licensing requirements and regulations that stop poor entrepreneurs, the miserable state of the public housing and education systems, as well as all the taxes the poor pay (including many highly regressive taxes, like sales tax, cigarette tax, utilities taxes and gasoline tax) and I am confident that a greatly reduced government would be on a whole an incredible net gain for the poor.

Its easy for the rich to sidestep the government's incompetence and oppressiveness. They can afford attorneys who can get drug charges thrown out, they can send their kids to private school when the public schools are failing, they have friends on the city commission that can get them around some zoning requirement, they can hire tax accountants who can find some loophole. The poor don't have these luxuries, so when the government fucks up, its really them that get screwed.

I see where you're coming from, some people will just be poor and hapless for their entire lives despite aid of any sort. Welfare can be detrimental to the lower class, this I understand, but I was simply using it as an example of a scenario in my previous post. I must thank you though for pointing out the clear benefits of the libertarian philosophy, as I admit I was very unfamiliar with the inner-workings of the theory beforehand. Its just depressing for Swim since he is very privileged, he receives the biggest benefits from capitalism. Anyway you look at it, people are always out to work for their own good/cause. It is prioritized high above that of others. Our governing body would never want to give away power to the people like Jefferson wanted. Human beings are egocentric in plain, but Swim has looked into egolibertarianism a bit and found that it would best suit his needs. Unfortunately, it wouldn't suit the politicians needs, and it would be rejected right away. The common folk in this country condemn illicit drugs, so they are always going to support the party that hands out the largest pile of bullshit. Is it possible to achieve a perfect system of government? Not with the human race. Different humans are far too opinionated to make a system that satisfies everyone's needs. Swim loves to think about politics and cultures when under the influence of psilocin, and has very intellectual conversation where conjectures are thrown back-n-foth constantly. He would very much like to chat with like-minded members here if any are on the same page (feel free to pm me).

[podge]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I couldn't resist adding this little gem.

Ron Paul on Evolution

Bats, like Huckabee.

Enter Kucinich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G980aLrAwoM

[KyleR22]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I couldn't resist adding this little gem.

Ron Paul on Evolution

Bats, like Huckabee.

He is not like Huckabee on the issue. Huckabee is a dolt who would let his new earth creationist views seep through into his political agenda.


Considering Ron Paul is a libertarian and is for rights and choice of American citizens (Which he has shown unlike Huckabee.) it doesn't matter what his beliefs are on the orgin of the universe/life/humankind. (However retarded they may be.)

He is for the legalization of gay marriage and drug use, so I think it shows that he is not some nutjob and his stance on evolution doesn't really matter as far as the job of being a president. Again, it's zealous new earth creationists like Huckabee who would abuse the job of president to push their shitty beliefs on America.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by podge

Enter Kucinich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G980aLrAwoM

Haha! I knew that would be brought up. An Unidentified Flying Object does not equal an alien spacecraft however. And just to set the record straight, I wouldn't sponsor Kucinich. I just think his policies fall in line closest to what I believe out the candidates of the two main parties.

Originally Posted by garden of grey

He is not like Huckabee on the issue. Huckabee is a dolt who would let his new earth creationist views seep through into his political agenda.


Considering Ron Paul is a libertarian and is for rights and choice of American citizens (Which he has shown unlike Huckabee.) it doesn't matter what his beliefs are on the orgin of the universe/life/humankind. (However retarded they may be.)

He is for the legalization of gay marriage and drug use, so I think it shows that he is not some nutjob and his stance on evolution doesn't really matter as far as the job of being a president. Again, it's zealous new earth creationists like Huckabee who would abuse the job of president to push their shitty beliefs on America.

Fair enough, I just think it damages his credibility somewhat though. I mean, the guy's a trained physician, he should know better. Denying the theory of evolution is as absurd as denying the theory of relativity. Of course it can't be 100% proven (only mathematics and logic are actually 100% provable) but it's hardly a rational viewpoint.

Is Paul in favour of legalizing gay marriage? I thought he was firmly against it. Nevertheless, that issue isn't really the cruncher when it comes to most people.

[podge]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

Haha! I knew that would be brought up. An Unidentified Flying Object does not equal an alien spacecraft however. And just to set the record straight, I wouldn't sponsor Kucinich. I just think his policies fall in line closest to what I believe out the candidates of the two main parties.

Honestly i havent really checked out any of Kucinich, just had to get that blow in there. haha. Ya id never seen that ron paul video before....its not too disheartening though, he doesnt blow on about creationism or anything, he did seem to be picking his words very carefully though. I like his policies in general though - no bullying other countries , no more drug war, freedom . And the only thing that clenchs it for me is that he actually seems genuine enough to want to deliver. When America gets cured of its political and governmental ills then the whole world will benifit as a result.

[El Calico Loco]

Hell, I might vote for a Scientologist if I believed he would return sanity to my nation.

(which includes not pushing his weird-ass beliefs on me)


ECL
("Restoring American glory by defeating the reactive mind and its body thetans! Ai! Ai! Cthulhu ftagn!")

[arman]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I couldn't resist adding this little gem.

Ron Paul on Evolution

Bats, like Huckabee.

let me add another interesting video about Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU

[enquirewithin]

We will all be Operating Thetans or Clears-- or something which costs a lot of ca$h to become!