Constant Conservative Ron Paul...

[Ben]

Constant Conservative Ron Paul (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/04/29/constant-conservative-ron-paul/)


Jack Hunter April 29th, 2011
American Conservative Magazine...

When Ron Paul ran for president in 2008, polls showed that Americans-at-large were worried about an increasingly bad economy, angry at Washington for bailing out Wall Street and weary of the Iraq War. GOP primary voters found themselves defending a Republican president who was on the unpopular side of all three issues, supporting a Republican nominee who agreed with him, and having to choose from a Republican field of candidates virtually indistinguishable from their president, their nominee and each other. Except one.
With Ron Paul all but declaring his candidacy for president this week, polls show that Americans at large are most worried about a bad economy, Obama’s high negatives indicate a persistent distrust and disgust with Washington, and this president’s three Middle Eastern wars are arguably more unpopular than Iraq and Afghanistan were three years ago.
Yet, even though they will have adjusted their various positions accordingly, 2012 GOP primary voters will generally find a field of candidates willing to bash the White House for basically doing the same things these same candidates once defended a Republican president doing. In fact, most potential 2012 candidates will be as guilty of contributing to big government as the president they’ll criticize. Mitt Romney gave us the blueprint for government-run healthcare. Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich gave Republican support for cap and trade. Rick Santorum ran cover for Bush’s entire statist agenda by touting the president’s alleged social conservatism. Adding ideological insult to injury, most of these candidates still promote an astronomically expensive foreign policy while they simultaneously and contradictorily claim we must cut spending. By and large, these candidates are conservative in rhetoric only, not their records, as has been the case with most Republican presidential candidates for decades.
That is, again, except one.
During the periods when conservatives find themselves not defending big government Republicans and instead choose to stress the need for limited government and constitutional fidelity, they echo the sentiments of Ron Paul. The difference is Paul never changes his sentiment. When conservatives are not defending big government Republicans and instead choose to talk about the need to eliminate debt and deficits, they are repeating the philosophy of Ron Paul. The difference is Paul never changes his philosophy.
Paul’s conservative consistency remains true, even when—and perhaps especially when—his fellow conservatives disagree with him. When conservatives attack Paul for his non-interventionist foreign policy views, the Texas congressman is quick to remind them that it is mathematically impossible to reduce the debt or deficits without addressing Pentagon spending. Cutting NPR, Planned Parenthood and earmarks will do nothing to effectively reduce the debt, no matter how much each might excite conservatives emotionally. Likewise, ignoring the need for military spending cuts will continue to help sustain and grow the debt, no matter how emotionally attached some conservatives are in their support for maintaining the status quo.
Obsessing over Obama’s birth certificate might be fun for some conservatives—but it only distracts from the United States’ economy’s impending death certificate, says Paul. Excitement over a reality TV star with a bad comb-over may hold conservatives’ attention for the moment—another moment wasted, says Paul, by not addressing the stark reality that is our collapsing dollar and economy. Many conservatives draw a battle line between Republicans and Democrats. Paul draws his line between those who support limited government and those in both parties who consider it unlimited.
Indeed, Ron Paul is the conservative constant in US politics. To the extent that the American Right is consistently conservative, it is generally in line with Paul. To the extent that the American Right gets distracted from conservative principles—typically in the name of Republican partisanship or some emotional attachment to a particular aspect of statism conservatives generally like—it finds itself at war with Paul.
But much of the GOP infighting Paul found himself in the middle of in 2008 has either vanished or significantly subsided. If the Republican leadership seems to have learned very little from the Bush years, the GOP’s conservative base has noticed this stubbornness and now sets its sights on defeating big government Republicans every bit as much as Democrats. For the political establishment, the Tea Party movement represents something new and perhaps unsettling in our politics. For Ron Paul and his admirers, it means there is finally a conservative movement.
With an overarching concern for limiting government and eliminating the debt, the now widespread conservative condemnations of “Keynesian economics” and attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve would’ve been unthinkable in 2008. Today, more Americans than ever seem willing to accept substantive entitlement reform and even oppose raising the debt ceiling, reflecting popular sentiments noticeably more radical than anything that could have been conceivable just a few years ago. Not all conservatives are in agreement with Paul’s foreign policy views, but they are significantly more open to them, especially within the context of criticizing a Democratic president’s seemingly foolish interventions and the absurdity of borrowing money from China to pay for them.
Heading into 2012, Paul’s poll numbers equal or exceed those of the perceived major potential candidates, his fundraising abilities equal or exceed those of the same candidates and the once perennial political outsider has now become a household name. More importantly, when it comes to the issues—most conservatives and perhaps most Americans are finding themselves increasingly in agreement with Paul.
Ron Paul is the conservative constant in American politics. In 2012 and beyond, may there be more Americans willing to be as consistently conservative.

[Ben]

Whaddya think the chances of Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination? I'd like him to. But the chances are pretty slim. (I think Mitt gets the nod. I mean, well, he's a banker. We need a banker to protect the interests of bankers. I mean, their interests have been so neglected under Obama and Bush... ha! ha! ha!)
I'd hope Ron Paul would bring every single troop home.
And let us, once again, be a Republic. And not an Empire.

YouTube - ‪Ron Paul: Offensive War Is Un-American! Close All U.S. Military Bases around the World!‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fOUb9YZYUM)

[Ben]

All Of Ron Paul's Iowa Fox GOP Debate Question & Answers - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76LFwMnq6bE)

[hippifried]

Now here's a perfect example of the fallacy of wing nuttery. Hope you don't mind, Ben, but I'm going to try to analyze you to a slight extent, just to make a point.

I can't predict Ben's positions at all. He doesn't fit the linear profile. In wing-think, he seems to be all over the place. But my observation is that he's consistent from issue to issue. From what I've seen, he'll give the same deference to Ron Paul & Noam Chompsky. How does that work in the current common political thought process? It doesn't. He's not alone. I've come across this a lot, just in these kinds of political forums. I imagine it could be a lot more prevalent among those who don't know & don't care what they're supposed to think, as opposed to what they already know they think.

What some would consider diametric opposites really aren't because of the wide range of overlapping ideals. It's harder to see the overlaps on the wing line because everything gets separated in the unworkable attempt to make the thought process fit the ill conceived dichotomy. It should be the other way around. Trying to change the reality to fit the description doesn't work. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Real wings aren't just a line across. They attach to a radial point. That allows for moving up, down, side to side, in a roll, etc... A sphere allows for even more freedom of movement through the myriad of issues we see every day. In the political sphere, there's no physical limits like gravity. All positions on all issues are easily reached from the central radius point, without the diversions of having to line up with someone else's mindset on other issues. Makes it a lot easier to explore the various positions, or craft your own. Spherically. Paul & Chompsky are very similar on social positions, but differ on economic issues & thoughts on government power structure. That can be said about almost any 2 people if you just list out the issues. Lockstep ideology is a myth. Time to debunk it.

[Stavros]

I think that it is evident to people who have 'engaged' with the public, quite apart from what they think themselves, that some people can be liberal on social policy, conservative in economic policy, and radical on foreign affairs. When I was in the Labour Party in London there were people who believed it was a 'woman's right to choose' on abortion, and one man I recall who opposed it absolutely, and he had lived through the era of illegal abortions and knew what happened in those dark times. Any number of Asians from the Indian sub-continent who voted Labour for decades, did so because of the perception Labour was relaxed on immigration, crucial for bringing in the husbands from the villages of their youth for their daughters. On social issues like homosexuality and drugs, and on issues like capital punishment, Asians are 'natural conservatives'.
Looked at in terms of precise issues, if somebody is 'completely' left or right wing, they probably are indeed, nutters.

[hippifried]

But isn't the whole point of politics to look at the different angles so as to deal with precise issues? Otherwise, why even bother with governance at all? My complaint with the wing line is its promotion of rigidity & polarization. Get inside the fringes, & everybody starts jumping back & forth all over the place. The closer you get to the center, the harder it is to find. The linear dichotomy loses its meaning in the confusion, so other positions (liberal/conservative, nationalist/internationalist, hawk/dove, Keynes/Friedman,etc...) get substituted without changing the terminology. That adds more confusion & further erodes the discussion.

I maintain that the left/right dichotomy primarily describes extremes & not much else. It's so convoluted that it serves no other purpose than to drive wedges between people over positions irrelevant to the issue at hand. It's just an interference with any kind of constructive dialog about anything. It's supposed to be a tool for visualizing an abstract. The straight line visual worked when there was seats & an aisle. It doesn't work in general to visualize all points of view. I'm just trying to introduce a different shape that works from all angles, & doesn't limit the number of approaches to a problem. I don't like arbitrary limits.

[Ben]

Now here's a perfect example of the fallacy of wing nuttery. Hope you don't mind, Ben, but I'm going to try to analyze you to a slight extent, just to make a point.

I can't predict Ben's positions at all. He doesn't fit the linear profile. In wing-think, he seems to be all over the place. But my observation is that he's consistent from issue to issue. From what I've seen, he'll give the same deference to Ron Paul & Noam Chompsky. How does that work in the current common political thought process? It doesn't. He's not alone. I've come across this a lot, just in these kinds of political forums. I imagine it could be a lot more prevalent among those who don't know & don't care what they're supposed to think, as opposed to what they already know they think.

What some would consider diametric opposites really aren't because of the wide range of overlapping ideals. It's harder to see the overlaps on the wing line because everything gets separated in the unworkable attempt to make the thought process fit the ill conceived dichotomy. It should be the other way around. Trying to change the reality to fit the description doesn't work. The tail doesn't wag the dog. Real wings aren't just a line across. They attach to a radial point. That allows for moving up, down, side to side, in a roll, etc... A sphere allows for even more freedom of movement through the myriad of issues we see every day. In the political sphere, there's no physical limits like gravity. All positions on all issues are easily reached from the central radius point, without the diversions of having to line up with someone else's mindset on other issues. Makes it a lot easier to explore the various positions, or craft your own. Spherically. Paul & Chompsky are very similar on social positions, but differ on economic issues & thoughts on government power structure. That can be said about almost any 2 people if you just list out the issues. Lockstep ideology is a myth. Time to debunk it.

No I don't mind. And my positions are unpredictable -- ha ha ha! (Oh, Noam Chomsky has said that Ron Paul is probably a nice person but he disagrees with him. Quite profoundly.)
And I don't want Ron Paul to be President. I think he'd make profound cuts that would be devastating to millions of Americans.
We're seeing this in Britain. Cameron is making deep spending cuts. Which'll hurt a helluva lot of people.
But Paul is the only well known -- and he is consistently in the spotlight -- politician that is speaking about ending the wars (and he does want to end them) and closing offshore military bases (he does want them closed) and ending the asinine war on drugs. He has said it's a health issue. Not a criminal issue.
So, there is no, say, popular left-wing politician or Presidential candidate out there. Ralph Nader is nearing the 80 year mark. And will likely not run again.
Dennis Kucinich isn't that well known. And he's, well, vertically challenged... which is bad for a politician -- ha ha ha! It's true though. People want tall Presidents.
So, Paul, who is well known, is appealing to a slew of people. On the left -- as he speaks about ending wars. And he appeals to people on the right because of his wanting deep spending cuts. But those on the left, as it were, should grasp his economic polices. In which case they wouldn't support him. They'd rally around, say, Dennis Kucinich. Which they could've done in '08. Instead of the, well, irrational frenzy surrounding the corporate candidate Barack Obama. People exhibited such irrationality in '08. Obama is and has always been a moderate Republican.
But I think Paul's cuts -- and he would cut -- would be quite devastating to a large portion of the population.
But Ron Paul is a good congressman. He is extremely principled. Even if you disagree with his ideas, his policy positions.
I think most politicians are simply opportunists. They've no core beliefs and don't care about issues. Not all. But most.

[onmyknees]

No I don't mind. And my positions are unpredictable -- ha ha ha! (Oh, Noam Chomsky has said that Ron Paul is probably a nice person but he disagrees with him. Quite profoundly.)
And I don't want Ron Paul to be President. I think he'd make profound cuts that would be devastating to millions of Americans.
We're seeing this in Britain. Cameron is making deep spending cuts. Which'll hurt a helluva lot of people.
But Paul is the only well known -- and he is consistently in the spotlight -- politician that is speaking about ending the wars (and he does want to end them) and closing offshore military bases (he does want them closed) and ending the asinine war on drugs. He has said it's a health issue. Not a criminal issue.
So, there is no, say, popular left-wing politician or Presidential candidate out there. Ralph Nader is nearing the 80 year mark. And will likely not run again.
Dennis Kucinich isn't that well known. And he's, well, vertically challenged... which is bad for a politician -- ha ha ha! It's true though. People want tall Presidents.
So, Paul, who is well known, is appealing to a slew of people. On the left -- as he speaks about ending wars. And he appeals to people on the right because of his wanting deep spending cuts. But those on the left, as it were, should grasp his economic polices. In which case they wouldn't support him. They'd rally around, say, Dennis Kucinich. Which they could've done in '08. Instead of the, well, irrational frenzy surrounding the corporate candidate Barack Obama. People exhibited such irrationality in '08. Obama is and has always been a moderate Republican.
But I think Paul's cuts -- and he would cut -- would be quite devastating to a large portion of the population.
But Ron Paul is a good congressman. He is extremely principled. Even if you disagree with his ideas, his policy positions.
I think most politicians are simply opportunists. They've no core beliefs and don't care about issues. Not all. But most.

So you post all these Ron Paul clips because you don't want him to be President? Ben you're perplexing ! lol And the reason is he'll make cuts that hurt people. The reality is that train has left the station. There has to be entitlement reform. Unless this economy experiences unprecedented levels of growth, and therefore more taxpayers funding the treasury, there's going to have to be cuts....And since the current administration does not seem capable of implementing pro growth policies, and the markets have little confidence they will....there's going to be cuts. It's simply a mathematical reality....Sure you can raise taxes, but that's not going to get you where you need...and wealthy people have a threshold and they're not going to let Uncle Sam take 40-50% of thier money. They'll shelter it or sit on it, and the anticipated windfall to the treasury will never be realized. ...which is what S & P message was. Now the rub comes when the demogoguary begins. Paul Ryan's plan did nothing to people who are 55 and over and/or are currently receiving benefits. You may not like his choices, but he put forth a fiscally sound plan. 5 minutes after his plan hit the presses, Pelosi, Turbin Durbin, Wasserman-Shultz, and Schumer hit the micophones with their usual shtick about starving our seniors. How do you negotiate with people like that? But that's what politicians do. Never confuse them with patriots.
Which is again why S&P did what they did what they did. They have no confidence people like Pelosi can set aside the political demagoguery long enough to reform these programs for future generations.

[Stavros]

But isn't the whole point of politics to look at the different angles so as to deal with precise issues? Otherwise, why even bother with governance at all? My complaint with the wing line is its promotion of rigidity & polarization.

Hippifried I think you are being too indvidualistic (I almost said too bourgeois)-there are people who feel secure and comfortable knowing that they are identifiable with a group: the sort of people who make an effort to go to rallies, be they public ones or partisan and cheer their hero to the rafters: its the latin dictum, coniungi dilectissime: it doesnt smooth over the divisions on specific policy, but a sense of belonging after all, is fundamental to ideology, identity politics, and retains a degree of power to affect the way people think and also vote..and go to war...

[hippifried]

But Ron Paul is a good congressman. He is extremely principled. Even if you disagree with his ideas, his policy positions.
I think most politicians are simply opportunists. They've no core beliefs and don't care about issues. Not all. But most.

& that's a major problem I see with most ideologies. They don't take dishonesty into account, & none of them can even work in theory unless everybody plays by the same rules. We already know they don't work in reality. & when it falls apart because of all the corruption, we see part 2 of the same problem, where everybody stamps their feet & points their fingers. "It's all their fault! Waaaaaaaaaa!" Mix hubris & intransigence with insecurity & gullibility, & you end up with ideologues. All very entertaining, but without a single workable solution to any problem.

[arnie666]

I think he has some good ideas,but he is a bit eccentric and many of his supporters certainly are batshit insane. Many far right racists and conspiracy theorists have attached themselves to him .Ron Paul is loved on stormfront. After some embarassing incident regarding something his supporters got up to,I forget now what it was,he was questioned about it by some reporter. Paul replied how he couldn't control his supporters,they are not his problem,they are who they are and had this really blank stare like he was completely unaffected by it.

If he truly wants to be president of the united states what does it say,when he can't be a leader to his supporters and he washes his hands of them? How will he fare when he has to meet the likes of Putin? He can't build a wall around america for fucks sake and put some kind of forcefield in the sky. I also think he is too old to be president ,something none of his supporters want to talk about. And just to say,I thought Mcain was too old as well.

Saying that, when the republican kick the current idiot out of the whitehouse, they should certain give Paul a job helping to sort out the economy.He has some good ideas.

[Ben]

Hartmann: Ron Paul...He Who Shall Not Be Named - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T15dvpnwPJo)

[Ben]

Ron Paul 'Scared' - Bill O'Reilly On Fox News - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwRYhKDpQgo)

[Ben]

I think he has some good ideas,but he is a bit eccentric and many of his supporters certainly are batshit insane. Many far right racists and conspiracy theorists have attached themselves to him .Ron Paul is loved on stormfront. After some embarassing incident regarding something his supporters got up to,I forget now what it was,he was questioned about it by some reporter. Paul replied how he couldn't control his supporters,they are not his problem,they are who they are and had this really blank stare like he was completely unaffected by it.

If he truly wants to be president of the united states what does it say,when he can't be a leader to his supporters and he washes his hands of them? How will he fare when he has to meet the likes of Putin? He can't build a wall around america for fucks sake and put some kind of forcefield in the sky. I also think he is too old to be president ,something none of his supporters want to talk about. And just to say,I thought Mcain was too old as well.

Saying that, when the republican kick the current idiot out of the whitehouse, they should certain give Paul a job helping to sort out the economy.He has some good ideas.


Ron Paul does have some good ideas. Specifically foreign policy. (And, too, he has said if the Republican Party preach fiscal conservatism, well, then they've to address the bloated military budget. I mean, if you look at the deficit. Well, what's causing it? Well, it's the inefficient health care system and the corrupt/bloated/insane military budget.
A president Paul would address military expenditures at a pretty fundamental level. I mean, policing the world will lead the U.S. to bankruptcy, as he has so often pointed out.
And:
He, as a doctor, said we should treat drug addiction as a health issue. And not a legal issue. This, too, would bring about a tremendous amount of savings.
I, actually, am not fully aware of who his followers are. Anyway, it's not good to rally around one person, as it were. To base a movement on one person, I think, is terrible for democracy. Ya know, Ron Paul saying something and his "followers" nodding in agreement isn't good for democratic values, for democracy itself. I mean, true and meaningful democracy means everyone participates. Following a leader, as it were, is not democracy.
And:
We certainly have elections. But we don't have meaningful democracy. Ya know, we push a lever every four years. And then go away. And watch TV, revel in sports, do our daily undertakings.... The point being, um, I don't think a Paul presidency would bring about a more meaningful democratic society.
There would be some changes. But the overall mechanisms, as it were, would stay in place. Actually, the concentration of private capital &/or corporate control, as it were, might get worse. So, a Paul presidency could be, actually, a serious assault on democracy.
I don't think we should have blind faith in politicians. I don't think we should be irrational. (But, well, politicians count on it. Politicians want uninformed voters making irrational choices. It worked for Obama. People were in a frenzy. They were completely irrational. And uninformed. They didn't realize that Obama was and is deeply conservative. By conservative I mean corporatist.
People, in an irrational frenzy, voted for Obama because they thought he'd bring about CHANGE and take on the banks and the corporate elite, as it were. But, well, where did he get his funding from? The banks -- ha ha ha!)
Anyway, the point being: It's '08 all over again. Instead of the irrational frenzy directed at Obama, well, this time it's Paul....

[trish]

On Aug 27th in regard to Irene, Ron Paul said, "We don't need FEMA, that's what the Second Amendment is for."

WTF!? The man never was too smart, but now he's lost it. What is he suggesting? People caught in the hurricane should guard themselves with firearms? Maybe you should shoot your neighbor before his rational self-interest usurps your own. Or maybe he's suggesting you shoot those would be government rescuers. You don't need those FEMA fuckers helping out and getting the way of good old fashioned looting. Maybe shoot Irene if she wanders too close.

He also said that it's not the purpose of government to protect the people! We know he would eradicate FEMA, but now the FDA, the military, the intelligence agencies, the Federal, State and Municipal police, and fire departments are evidently being called into question. Do you really need the fucking Federal government to protect your business from being extorted by local mobs? Do you really need Federal assistance when an earthquake rips up your town and causes a nuclear meltdown in a nearby reactor? According to Ron Paul the answer is: Hell No You Don't! It's not the purpose of government to protect the people.

[Ben]

Thom Hartmann points out that under a Paul presidency inequality will get much worse.
Well, if you look at who are making staggering income gains, it's the top 0.01 percent of the population.
Their incomes are shooting through the stratosphere. (Ron Paul will be great for them. And not too good for the vast majority of the population who've seen their incomes stagnate or decline since 1980.
And, of course, this is the result of government policies... which as Adam Smith pointed out: the principal architects of policy are going to steer government policy to favor their interests. And who cares what happens to the vast majority of the population.
So, Paul will exacerbate this problem... of income inequality. But the truly vexing thing about Paul: he's very good on some issues.)

Thom Hartmann debates a caller...libritarian or democrat? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdGYH9ZYsm8)

[Ben]

Thom Hartmann and Will Bunch - The Economic Decline Started With Reagan - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiDGrIf0MI8)

[Ben]

This is where I agree w/ Ron Paul:

Ron Paul Booed at CNN - Tea Party Debate - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C2eo)

This is where I disagree:

Tea Party Crowd Cheers Letting Uninsured Die - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao)

Even the PUBLIC OPTION would've been a good step forward. Give people the choice whether they want private -- or the public option.
Oh, no! Socialism -- ha ha ha!
As the writer and essayist Gore Vidal has said, We've socialism for the rich and free enterprise for everyone else....

[Ben]

Ron Paul: Militarism vs National Defense at Tea Party Debate 9/12/2011 (booed) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMAzQ5YB304&NR=1)

[Stavros]

Paul of course is right about al-Qaeda's justification for the attacks on America, it is documented and makes sense when seen in the context of what happened between 1990 and 2001; and he has a valid point about the difference between military spending and defence spending. But surely that goes to the core of Eisenhower's warning about the Military Industrial Complex as a merger between the needs of defence and the business of weapons procurement and I don't see how he can disentangle the two were he to become President. The question is, does the Federal budget prioritise defence spending more than is justified? I can't answer that; as I am not a US citizen; other than a general feeling that we all spend too much on the hard stuff and not enough on the soft stuff (building alliances, for example) -which at the moment Britain is not much good at.

In addition, there are 'hidden' issues in the defence budget, for example the proportion that is spent on 'non-military' items which can cost billions of dollars a year (troop monitoring, environmental clean-ups at bases; maintaining bases in countries where there is no conflict, eg Germany); the cost of maintaining a nuclear capability which means, in effect, billions of dollars spent on parking fees for machinery that never moves, and so on.

Then there is the role played by Congress/House in the procurement chain which is fixated on diverting federal funds to local districts for the creation of a part of a weapons system, aeroplane, submarine -you name it- which ends up spreading around the creation of something that might be out of date in ten year. The Stealth Bomber is a good example -developed in secret in the 1980s to target the USSR's nuclear bunkers, by the time it became public the Cold War was over but the unique cost of this innovative plane -$2bn or thereabouts each in 1989- made it look like a honey pot to politicians; so the contractor, Northrop came up with a compensation plan for an ambitious bomber that would spread the contracts for building it across -wait for it, 383 Congressional districts! A good example of how defence spending becomes interwoven with politics -one wonder if the same level of spending could have been targeted at servicemen and women returning from some theatre of war with horrific injuries and also in many cases psychological needs.

It is a complex issue, this week in London there is an arms fair to which certain governmnts have sent delegates -Bahrain for example- and in the Uk there has always been some phobia about defence spending so that when cuts are made, the Chancellor is applauded for his 'courage'; but as Paul suggests, if you get your foreign policy right, you might not need to spend so much on the military anyway.

[runningdownthatdream]

On Aug 27th in regard to Irene, Ron Paul said, "We don't need FEMA, that's what the Second Amendment is for."

WTF!? The man never was too smart, but now he's lost it. What is he suggesting? People caught in the hurricane should guard themselves with firearms? Maybe you should shoot your neighbor before his rational self-interest usurps your own. Or maybe he's suggesting you shoot those would be government rescuers. You don't need those FEMA fuckers helping out and getting the way of good old fashioned looting. Maybe shoot Irene if she wanders too close.

He also said that it's not the purpose of government to protect the people! We know he would eradicate FEMA, but now the FDA, the military, the intelligence agencies, the Federal, State and Municipal police, and fire departments are evidently being called into question. Do you really need the fucking Federal government to protect your business from being extorted by local mobs? Do you really need Federal assistance when an earthquake rips up your town and causes a nuclear meltdown in a nearby reactor? According to Ron Paul the answer is: Hell No You Don't! It's not the purpose of government to protect the people.

Government's role shouldn't be to protect 'the people'. Not sure about you but I'm comfortable with protecting myself and what belongs to me. Just get rid of the laws that prevent me from doing that! You are an enormously intelligent person (from your posts) which is why I find it startling that you - time after time - advocate so passionately in favour of 'government' acting as a parent to protect the people. I'm curious as to why you think this is necessary and love to hear your thoughts on the role of 'government'.

[Ben]

Noam Chomsky Agrees With Ron Paul on His 9/11 Theories - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uuXRjvskGI)

[Ben]

Government's role shouldn't be to protect 'the people'. Not sure about you but I'm comfortable with protecting myself and what belongs to me. Just get rid of the laws that prevent me from doing that! You are an enormously intelligent person (from your posts) which is why I find it startling that you - time after time - advocate so passionately in favour of 'government' acting as a parent to protect the people. I'm curious as to why you think this is necessary and love to hear your thoughts on the role of 'government'.

The "government's role shouldn't be to protect the people...." OK, what exactly is the government's role? (What about from, say, foreign attacks or potential terrorist attacks or "protection" at the airports?) Should they or the government (and we should note that in a very meaningful democratic society the people and government are one and the same and they, government officials or what should be simple ADMINISTRATORS, serve the interests of the people; and, too, this needs to be underscored: corporations are private governments -- and also they're private governments that are inordinately right wing as democracy doesn't exist in these institutions) build highways, bridges, schools, roads, sidewalks.... If, say, the Pentagon ceased to exist we wouldn't have the high-tech economy. (Remember the way STATE CAPITALISM works is pretty straightforward. The ideas, costs and risks are socialized and then the profits and management are privatized. I mean, the Internet came out of the public sector. It was in the public sector from 1965 to circa 1995. And then parasites like Bill Gates come along and make a fortune. Bill Gates did not invest his own money in the Internet and computers. The Internet and computers came out of the public sector. This ain't free market capitalism. Capitalism, again, in its purest ideological form means no government.
So this isn't free market so-called capitalism when the State plays a profound role.

[trish]

Government's role shouldn't be to protect 'the people'. Not sure about you but I'm comfortable with protecting myself and what belongs to me. Just get rid of the laws that prevent me from doing that! You are an enormously intelligent person (from your posts) which is why I find it startling that you - time after time - advocate so passionately in favour of 'government' acting as a parent to protect the people. I'm curious as to why you think this is necessary and love to hear your thoughts on the role of 'government'.Thank you for your kind assessment of my prior posts.

You ask in effect, “Why do I think the function of government is to protect us as a parent protects a child?” The short answer is that I don’t. Indeed, we probably agree that people have the responsibility to protect themselves. But here is probably where we differ. I think that appropriate governance is governance of, by and for the people and that one of the appropriate roles of government is therefore protecting its citizens from a variety of obvious threats. When governance is rightly done, a government protecting its citizens IS its citizens protecting themselves.

So what sorts of protections can we provide for ourselves through government?

Some are obvious. We cannot adequately protect ourselves individually against foreign invasion. So we have a military.
The citizens of all modern democracies have agreed that on local and State levels police forces are necessary for making our streets and the businesses lining them are safe from robbers, thugs and gangs.
We’ve agreed that when crime syndicates cross State lines it is necessary and convenient to have a Federal law enforcement agency.
A long time ago Federal marshals in Federal territories protected sheep herders from the outlaw posies of wealthy ranchers. Few would disagree that these protections, provided by local, State and Federal government, are justifiable functions of government.

As the world grows more complex thugs and thieves grow more sophisticated and exploit people in more sophisticated ways. Slavery. Indentured servitude. Price fixing. Dumping toxic wastes in public waterways. Fraud. Theft. It is impossible for a single individual to protect herself or himself against all instances of these and other wrongs that might be perpetrated in one form or another in our modern world. But we can combat these assaults on ourselves and on our form of life by banding together against them. We do this most conveniently by carefully delineating just what sorts of practices are unwarranted or immoral and legislating against them, and by having the appropriate law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting violations of the laws upon which we have agreed to honor.

Perhaps you will agree that most or all of the above examples of government protection are warranted. Modern conservatives are usually pretty big on law and order issues. So what about other sorts of protections, like Social Security or Medicare?

Once again, as the world grows more sophisticated so grows our perception of the role of government. In particular Social Security is an evolved function of modern democracies. It was a historical response to a need to provide a safety net for the elderly. Before unions men who reached late middle age were often fired from their jobs. Not because they were bad at them, but because younger laborers were cheaper and less questioning. It’s very difficult for a man in his late middle age to get a new job. Moreover, wages were such that a laborer's family could barely live from week to week, let alone save for old age or buy stock. The Great Depression amplified this problem. The solution for the wealthy is to build walls around the manor. The solution for workers was labor unions and government protections. Now that most unions have been busted modern readers may find out soon enough for themselves what things were like. Unions were a way that laborers used to protect themselves against the abuses of employers. But I see nothing wrong with codifying some of the protections won by labor into local, State and Federal law. Some of these protections take the form of economic safety nets likes Social Security and Medicare. These programs are not at all paternalistic. They are simply the extension of people looking after themselves.

Finally I can imagine there might be a reader who agrees with everything I said so far but objects that our government (the good ol’ U.S.of A.) is not a government of, by and for the people. I simply disagree. Moreover, I favor graduated taxes and stiff regulations that would protect against the oligarchic rule of rich and powerful individuals, rich and powerful corporations and lobbies and which at the same time protect the health and pocketbooks of ordinary citizens against the abusive practices the greedy.

[Stavros]

It is curious that there seems to be a critical debate about the role of Government in the USA, to some extent also in the UK but with less vitriol; whereas in France and Germany this debate doesn't seem to happen on the same level or with the same tone -there they have periodic and anxious debates about what it means to be French or German; but seem to be less critical of big government. In addition, the state in those two countries takes responsibilities that don't upset people so much, and they are more heavily taxed too: an example of the classic case from Hobbes through Locke being that people are willing to give up a proportion of their liberty to be protected by the state from personal attack, usually accomplished through law and order. Since the mid-20thc if not before, this has been extended to cover education, which is seen as an investment in the future as well as a process of socialisation of the individual; health care which in the past was provided by charity; and public transport, from which it is notoriously difficult to make a profit.

Capitalism preceded the growth of the modern state and particularly the state bureaucracy which has mushroomed mostly since the 1950s, which is why the two have often collided: the last quarter of the 19thc in the USA (similar to the 1990s in Russia) appeared to be a free-for-all where robber barons and indutrial pioneers like Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Vanderbilt and Carnegie to name just a few, made staggering fortunes obliterating their competitors, often by cheating and lying and possibly murdering their way to the top. The Sherman Act of 1890 on the one hand stands in contradiction to free trade, but was a response to the monopolies that were appearing in railroads, oil, communications and so on: it was a capitalist government using the state's legislative powers to intervene to create the competition the free market had strangled.

These days it is being pursued from the opposite direction: with the idea that welfare takes responsibility away from the individual and gives it to a state/tax-financed agency: that regulatory agencies tie up businesses with red tape and inhibit investment in new industries and jobs; that rents taxes rates and so on imposed by state or federal govt also prevent job creation. But in fact is this opposition coming from 'the people' or is it in fact the commercial lobby orchestrating a critique of policy for not giving it the freedom it wants?

I see no problem about debating what the state is for, and for increasing transparency in government -after all, these are our governments- but I see a lot of the critique of the state as a worn out argument for free enterprise that history shows works in an uneven way, I guess a case of history being written by the winners...but history also suggests that unregulated free enterprise can lead to the very monopolies that strangulate competition, so I don't see how people can claim at one and the same time that government inhibits freedom when it should act to maintain it. Ultimately, we live in capitalist societies, it may be the best system we have so far, but it needs looking after -and if the state is significntly reduced, taxes with it, why have an elected government anyway? All we would need are administrators.

[trish]

history also suggests that unregulated free enterprise can lead to the very monopolies that strangulate competitionNot only history but mathematics. Von Neumann and Morganstern in their famous treatise Theory of Games and Economic Behavior prove from very simple first principles that players in n-person games will inevitably form coalitions that effectively reduce n. Coalitions within coalitions will also form creating the necessary leverage to eliminate "team" members from the game entirely. In the limit every n-person game reduces to just two or three players. In economic terms, without regulations, watchdogs and enforcement monopolies are inevitable. Bye bye free enterprise.

Every steam engine needs a governor. Every motor a regulator.

Organization (i.e. government) is required to resist the exploitation of organized coalitions of thieves, thugs and bosses.

[Stavros]

Thanks Trish! A good reason for getting rid of Coalition Government!

[trish]

Well I don't know if its an argument against, but it certainly describes the ongoing dynamic.

[Ben]

POLITIFACT.COM...
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/mugs%2Fmug-ronpaul.jpg The U.S. military "is in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world."

Ron Paul (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ron-paul/) on Monday, September 12th, 2011 in a Republican presidential debate in Tampa

Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-mostlytrue.gif Share this story:




http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2FRon_Paul_at_Tampa_debate.jpg Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, gestures during a Republican presidential debate on Sept. 12, 2011, in Tampa.

During the Sept. 12, 2011, Republican presidential debate in Tampa, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas -- a staunch advocate of limited government and a more modest military footprint -- offered a surprising statistic about the reach of the U.S. armed forces.

"We're under great threat, because we occupy so many countries," Paul said. "We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke. The purpose of al-Qaida was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it. They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11, but we're there occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we're kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say, China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?"

That statement includes a lot of different claims, but we’re going to focus on just one of them here that a reader asked us to check -- that the U.S. military "is in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world."

We’ll split this into two parts -- checking whether the U.S. military has personnel in 130 countries, and whether the U.S. has 900 overseas military bases.

Personnel

For the personnel question, we turned to a Sept. 30, 2010, Pentagon document titled, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1009.pdf)Country (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1009.pdf)."

We tallied up all the countries with at least one member of the U.S. military, excluding those with personnel deemed to be "afloat." We found U.S. military personnel on the ground in a whopping 148 countries -- even more than Paul had said. (There are varying standards for what constitutes a "country," so that may explain the divergence from Paul’s number.)

However, we should add a caveat. In 56 of these 148 countries, the U.S. has less than 10 active-duty personnel present. These include such obscure locales as Mongolia, Nepal, Gabon, Togo and Suriname.

By contrast, the U.S. has disclosed only 13 countries outside the United States and its possessions that are host to more than 1,000 personnel. They are: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Japan, Bahrain, Djibouti, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait.

In addition, this is a snapshot of the global military footprint, so it may not include all temporary training missions and humanitarian assistance activities. "Such activities are so pervasive you almost have to wonder how the other 70 countries manage to avoid hosting such operations," said John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org, a national security think tank.

Bases

For this question, we turned to an official Pentagon accounting of U.S. military bases around the nation and the world, the "Base Structure Report, Fiscal 2010 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/bsr2010baseline.pdf)Baseline (http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/bsr2010baseline.pdf)."

According to this report, the U.S. has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries, which is a smaller number than the 900 bases Paul cited. But here again, the list omits several nations integral to active operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it’s conceivable that the actual number of sites approaches 900.

The Pentagon "is very reluctant to label anything a ‘base’ because of the negative political connotations associated with it," said Alexander Cooley, a political scientist at Barnard College and Columbia University who studies overseas bases. "Some of these facilities, such as the Manas Transit Center in Kyrgyzstan, may not be officially counted as ‘bases,’ but it is the most important U.S. facility in central Asia, staging every U.S. soldier transiting in and out of Afghanistan and conducting refueling operations."

Still, caveats are in order here, too. Of the 662 overseas sites listed -- that is, those outside the active war zones -- all but 32 of them are either small sites (with a replacement value of less than $915 million) or sites essentially owned on paper only.

For instance, the sole site listed for Canada is 144 square feet of leased space -- equal to a 12-foot-by-12-foot room. That’s an extreme case, but other nations on the list -- such as Aruba, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Norway and Peru -- have just a few U.S. military buildings, many of them leased. Some of the sites are unmanned radio relay towers or other minor facilities. "Most of them are a couple of acres with a cyclone fence and no troops," Pike said.

Cooley said that the "true figure is tough to determine and involves judgment calls about the nature and purpose" of the activities involved. "The fact that host countries often choose not to disclose a U.S. military presence adds to perceptions of a ‘secret network’ " that is larger than the officially disclosed number of bases.

Our ruling
Given the incomplete figures available from the Pentagon, Paul’s topline figures -- 130 nations, 900 bases -- are plausible when active military operations are included. "My eyebrows were raised many times" during the debate, Pike said, but this comment "was not one of those times."
Still, we think it’s worth pointing out that many of the personnel deployments and facilities included in Paul’s number are fairly minimal in nature. On balance, we rate Paul’s statement Mostly True.

[Ben]

Ron Paul's Health Insurance Alternative - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJqlqZ13qeE)

[Ben]

Ron Paul's Campaign Manager Would Have Been Insured...Thanks to Obamacare - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vTwAqNrPg4)

[Ben]

Liberals & Libertarians Actually Different; Ron Paul Confusion - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIBtiqo0H-4)

[Stavros]

Ben
thank you for these various clips which, edited though they are have been useful for me as I don't have access to the range of media you do on the US debates. Ron Paul is not going to be around much longer as a candidate, so his contributions are at best 'interesting', at worst contradictory. The press has picked up on the crowd reactions by the way, particularly when asked about a man with no health insurance who goes into a coma -when asked if he should be given health care some in the audience shout No! -and so on. The death penalty was another I think. Some of your clips feature people who are frankly inarticulate, I assume its from some obscure cable channel, the last two are examples. Nevertheless, without similar access here I would not be spending hours trawling for it on youtube so thanks again.

[BluegrassCat]

Some of your clips feature people who are frankly inarticulate,

We can't all be Richard Dawkins or Chris Hitchens. The Brits have an unfair advantage: that melodious accent provides an air of erudition and sophistication that we just can't match.

[Stavros]

That isn't the point -there are courses in presentation skills those guys can take, and you would think if they are going to produce their own shows they might at least be more professional about it -one of them clearly had no script and was all over the place. It really is not about the accent!

[Ben]

Ben
thank you for these various clips which, edited though they are have been useful for me as I don't have access to the range of media you do on the US debates. Ron Paul is not going to be around much longer as a candidate, so his contributions are at best 'interesting', at worst contradictory. The press has picked up on the crowd reactions by the way, particularly when asked about a man with no health insurance who goes into a coma -when asked if he should be given health care some in the audience shout No! -and so on. The death penalty was another I think. Some of your clips feature people who are frankly inarticulate, I assume its from some obscure cable channel, the last two are examples. Nevertheless, without similar access here I would not be spending hours trawling for it on youtube so thanks again.

You're welcome.
Actually, I think Ron Paul will be in for the long haul. Because he wants a national -- and international -- stage to get his ideas out.
On some issues I agree with him. Completely. On others, well, I have disagreements. But he's honest. One thing you can say about Ron Paul: he's honest. Unlike other politicians. Pretty much all politicians are dishonest. It's the nature of the beast, I guess -- :)
The American writer William Blum said about Obama: he has no core beliefs and he doesn't care about issues.... You can agree or disagree with Blum's conclusions. But Ron Paul is the antithesis. He does have core beliefs and he certainly cares about issues. You know where he stands.
But, well, I mean, if he became President would he have to compromise? Most likely. He couldn't get his radical agenda through congress.
The capitalist-state-corporate structure depends on a sizable government intervention in the economy. President Paul would want to make serious... and I mean serious... cuts. Would congress, the corporate congress -- :), go along with this? Well, no.

Noam Chomsky defends Ron Paul - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNgfaf7aHvQ)

[Ben]

Interesting discussion. And Ron Paul is brought up -- :)

Joe Rogan & Jamie Kilstein Talk Politics - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQkLcQ3fp4)

[Ben]

Ron Paul Attacks Institutionalized Assassination of US Citizens - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WRexSyuQ7w)

[Ben]

Ron Paul: Don't Assassinate US Citizens - Even McVeigh Had His Day in Court - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXsgTRzBePw)

[arnie666]

We can't all be Richard Dawkins or Chris Hitchens. The Brits have an unfair advantage: that melodious accent provides an air of erudition and sophistication that we just can't match.

Appearances can be deceptive and I say that as a proud British Nationalist.

[beandip]

And I don't want Ron Paul to be President. I think he'd make profound cuts that would be devastating to millions of Americans.

And would benefit tens of millions of Americans even more.

Fuck the government leechfucks.

It's all about the numbers bitchez.

you can't argue math.

Austerity is a train that is long over due and I can't wait!

Get ready for the 40% haircut that FEDGOV is gonna get, either voluntarily, or not.

the gig is finally over and freedom will win.

:)

[Ben]

Ron Paul CBS News Republican Debate Highlights — November 12, 2011 (HD) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlmc8ap5jEM)

Chris Rock supports Ron Paul 2012?? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm2sLSWXOOM&feature=related)

[Silcc69]

Ron Paul 2012 - Great Interview on D L Hughley 3-7-09 I hope he runs 2012!!! And WINS! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkVUiaj4C24)

Ron Paul Educates Bill O'Reilly - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgY-9FB92TQ)

[Ben]

Ron Paul Polls Ignored by Mainstream Media - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os85fo3kk0Q)

[Ben]

Could any of the other GOP candidates, aside from Jon Huntsman, articulate on the issues like Paul.... Agree or disagree. He is consistent. Again, there are good points and bad points about Paul. Well, he is a politician after all -- :)

Ron Paul : Fiat Money Is America's Biggest Export - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mxBfIPQR04)

[hippifried]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines"

~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~

[Stavros]

Finally, an American who quotes Emerson - now that is class....

[Silcc69]

Rick Perry Threatens Ron Paul at the Ronald Reagan Library Debate - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNaL3Fx9iLc)

Ron Paul HUMILIATES Rick Perry in front of Tea Party Audience - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suhEkQFXrHc)

[Ben]

The role of the media class, like Bob Schieffer, is to protect the powerful as evidenced by this interview w/ Ron Paul.
And, well, to summarize Hans Morganthau: the so-called respected intellectuals in virtually every society are those who are distinguished by their conformist subservience to those in power.

CBS News Sunday Morning - Paul: Flawed U.S. policy contributed to 9/11 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHocbjzFXoA)

[hippifried]

Just out of curiosity, how did Ron Paul, or any libertarians really, get tagged as conservative? It seems to me that a conservative politician would be the one who isn't trying to turn the current system on its head. Here we go abain with another abject failure of the current labeling system, which has turned the public dialog into nothing more than meaningless hyperbole.

[Ben]

Just out of curiosity, how did Ron Paul, or any libertarians really, get tagged as conservative? It seems to me that a conservative politician would be the one who isn't trying to turn the current system on its head. Here we go abain with another abject failure of the current labeling system, which has turned the public dialog into nothing more than meaningless hyperbole.

The terms "left" and "right" are kinda meaningless. I mean, the term conservative has been DISTORTED.
But in the real term, well, conservatism is about preserving 18th. century values.
I mean, modern conservatism is a profound reaction to the values in which the country was established.
Anyway, Paul claims to be a "conservative" because he says he's a strict constitutionalist.

[hippifried]

Anyway, Paul claims to be a "conservative" because he says he's a strict constitutionalist.

Well that'd make him a liar. He's as big a Constitutional cherry picker as any of the radicals who think the Preamble is just a cute introduction, or fringers who think "strict constructionism" & "originalism" are synonymns or that the people are too stupid to know that they're trying to pull a fast one. So much for principles. When someone runs for the Presidency as often as Ron Paul, I'd be disappointed if he didn't have the talking points down.

Libertarians are not conservative. Anarchy is a radical concept. Follow the philosophy to its conclusion & you end up with no governance. We've seen the result of that. On one end, you have Somalia. On the other, you have massive fraud that crashes the world's financial systems. It's an invitation to corporatism (fascism), & the next step is dectatorial rule in lieu of governance. Libertarians are about pie in the sky.

Radical isn't conservative. Neither are strict constructionists who ignore the parts that allow for amendment or negate the concept of strict construction in relation to the Bill of Rights. Of the first 10 Amendments, this is my favorite:


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Strict constructionists like to pretend #9 doesn't exist as they jump from 2 to 10, & lawyers & judges like to avoid it. That's some really scary stuff...

Then you have the "originalists" with their ouija boards to tell you what the legislators really meant instead of what actually got written into law.

I don't want a fanatic in the Oval Office. You think there's gridlock now?

[Ben]

Well that'd make him a liar. He's as big a Constitutional cherry picker as any of the radicals who think the Preamble is just a cute introduction, or fringers who think "strict constructionism" & "originalism" are synonymns or that the people are too stupid to know that they're trying to pull a fast one. So much for principles. When someone runs for the Presidency as often as Ron Paul, I'd be disappointed if he didn't have the talking points down.

Libertarians are not conservative. Anarchy is a radical concept. Follow the philosophy to its conclusion & you end up with no governance. We've seen the result of that. On one end, you have Somalia. On the other, you have massive fraud that crashes the world's financial systems. It's an invitation to corporatism (fascism), & the next step is dectatorial rule in lieu of governance. Libertarians are about pie in the sky.

Radical isn't conservative. Neither are strict constructionists who ignore the parts that allow for amendment or negate the concept of strict construction in relation to the Bill of Rights. Of the first 10 Amendments, this is my favorite:

Strict constructionists like to pretend #9 doesn't exist as they jump from 2 to 10, & lawyers & judges like to avoid it. That's some really scary stuff...

Then you have the "originalists" with their ouija boards to tell you what the legislators really meant instead of what actually got written into law.

I don't want a fanatic in the Oval Office. You think there's gridlock now?

You write: "Libertarians are not conservative."
Yes! Not in the traditional sense. I mean, if ya go back over a hundred years conservatism was about being against concentrated power. Whether it was state power or corporate power.
What the likes of Paul want -- actually, I'm not sure if he realizes it -- is corporate tyranny. I mean, if you remove the state, well, what takes its place? Corporations. And they aren't accountable to the public. You and I have a say on who the president is. We have no say on who the head of, say, General Motors is.
So, libertarians want (once again, I'm not sure if they realize this) is a radical corporate state.
I mean, in the absence of government there's no defense against corporate power. I mean, electoral democracy, as it were, would cease to exist. Corporate income taxes would disappear. As would all taxes. What happens to the police force? Well, it becomes private.
Roads? Sidewalks? Schools? Hospitals? Who builds them? And who would they serve? Well, if ya have the cash ya got 'em. And if ya don't, well, tough luck. I mean, it'd be a dystopian society.

[Stavros]

You write: "Libertarians are not conservative."
Yes! Not in the traditional sense. I mean, if ya go back over a hundred years conservatism was about being against concentrated power. Whether it was state power or corporate power.
Ben, I think you have that the wrong way round -traditionally, conservatives have defended the concentration of power, the structures of the state that protect the status quo where that guarantees the unequal distribution of wealth and power: libertarians believe that liberty is denied by structures of power that do not change and do not distribute the benefits of the economy more widely -which is why libertarians tend to prefer small or no government to Big Government; why Libertarians tend to disapprove of Monarchy while conservatives believe it gives stability and authority to the state; and it is why libertarians want little or no taxation, while conservatives need it to fund the administration of the state, not to mention its wars.

Libertarians are not conservative. Anarchy is a radical concept. Follow the philosophy to its conclusion & you end up with no governance. We've seen the result of that. On one end, you have Somalia.

Anarchy does not remove government, this is a myth -Somalia is not anarchy, but chaos. The difference is that anarchy does not believe in a single, centralised, concentrated form of government. Studies of the bedouin of Arabia, for example, show that on the one hand they are resistant to taxation, government, and law: they are, allegedly, in terms of day to day practice, not very good Muslims compared to those who live in cities. However, what emerges from the desert is a nexus of norms which are law by any other name: in the absence of government, of police, of law, the bedouin have evolved codes of conduct which enable them to exist in a region where the competition for grazing land and water ought to have wiped out the bedouin way of life centuries ago -it didn 't. Tribe A steals goats from tribe B, some of the goats are stolen by Tribe C, and some of them are stolen by Tribe A. Blood revenge among the bedouin does not lead to an eternal sequence of killing -yes, Brother A may be killed for killing Brother B, but the sequence cannot go on indefinitely: the tribal elders intervene, and compensation through goods and moral recognition of blame (honour) resolves the dispute: consider: no government, no law, no taxation: and yet there is a code of behaviour, there are moral frameworks to resolve conflict; crucially, it provides the accepted framework within which life can continue. The crime syndicates that operate beyond the law have also their own codes of conduct, they are not 'out of control', they believe in it, or their businesses would go bust. And the Mafia is at its weakest when the families are fighting each other.

Hobbes is the eloquent voice of concern -man in the state of nature, living a life that is brutish, nasty and short: Hobbes was forced to flee England during the revolutionary wars, he was horrified by the breakdown of law and order and the violence that ensued, and developed a theory of power which was intended to make such chaos impossible in a well-governed state. But over time, and not just in England, chaos -not anarchy- would have yielded to some kind of order; just as it will in Somalia.

[hippifried]

You write: "Libertarians are not conservative."
Yes! Not in the traditional sense.

Not in any sense. Radical is opposite of conservative. Radical, liberal, conservative, & reactionary are adjectives, & mostly describe an attitude &/or approach toward issues more than preset positions.

Language matters. That's how we describe who we are & what we think. How we think. If the descriptives themselves cause confusion in both the user & receiver, how can anyone expect to be understood? The pollitical dialog, worldwide, is totally disfunctional. This is where it starts. There's been a concerted & successful effort to muddy & misconstrue the language for the last several decades. So now it gets harder & harder to keep it civil because nearly anything you say is some kind of condescending insult to somebody.

All puditry is lies. We've allowed ourselves to get caught up in the rancor & animosity, when we really aren't involved in that aspect of the argument.




What the likes of Paul want -- actually, I'm not sure if he realizes it -- is corporate tyranny.

Didn't I already say that? Corporate control of government is the definition of fascism. It's just feudalism without the genetic componant of the aristocracy. We're getting closer every day.

[hippifried]

Anarchy does not remove government, this is a myth -Somalia is not anarchy, but chaos.

Anarchy is absence of rule. Utopian anarchy actually works if everybody's on the same page & the moral code is adhered to. Collective decisions are made by acclimation. People work together. The collective society is everyone's first consideration, & altruism is the common mindset. Sounds great. Now back to reality. The more people gathered together in close proximity, the higher the likelihood of some going after more than their fair share. Add shortages to the mix, & will sprout like weeds. Welcome to chaos. The problem with Somalia was that they were knowlegable of western systems, where ownership is the be all & end all. You can't have utopian anarchy based on private property. That's why libertarians are living in the smoke of a pipe dream. The Ayn Rand worshiping egoist cult is even crazier.They're the lunatic fringe of the libertarian lunatic fringe. Like her, they deny the very existence of altruism, & claim that mo9rality is something that needs to be thought out. Huh? Enlightened self interest huh? Welcome to Somalia. It doesn't get more enlightened than picking up a gun & taking what you want, if there's no thought for the other guy.

The universal right is to be free from victimization at the hands of others. That doesn't happen when everybody adheres to the moral code. "Everybody" doesn't. That's the flaw in all the oh so very carefully thought out social systems & philosophies.

[Stavros]

The more I think about it, the less sure I am that anarchy is anything other than a temporary situation -Somalia is not experiencing anarchy because there are forms of order imposed on people -the pirates have an organisation of some sort, the al-Shabab have their own agenda -the state may have failed, but that is not the same as anarchy -indeed, it is because the failure of the state has given space for micro-organisms (politically) to flourish that makes re-building the state such a hard task in Somalia -unless one group gets big enough to impose some order -as the Taliban did in Afghanistan in the 1990s-and it isn't helped when foreign troops enter the country with their own agenda. But after all, one reason why Italy is such a mess is that the Kingdom of Naples and Siciliy was never properly integrated into the republic, the orgaised crime syndicates of Sicily, Calabria, Campania and Puglia took advantage of the absence of effective state power by creating a niche for themselves which even a modern state like Italy cannot erase -or rather, replace. Pure anarchy seems to me to be a moment of transition, the transition from bourgeois to communist rule in Russia in 1917-1919, a time when nobody really knew who was going to end up running the country'; the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in its wildest phases in 1966 and 1967 was anarchy -neither the Party nor the Army could control the Red Guards. People can't bear it, they form some kind of protective body to give order and coherence to their lives. Then someone comes up with the bright idea: I will run the show for you, and in return, you give me a wage for doing it -hence taxation, and hence Charles Tilly's description of the state as a protection racket. Problem is, it works.

[Ben]

Anarchy is absence of rule. Utopian anarchy actually works if everybody's on the same page & the moral code is adhered to. Collective decisions are made by acclimation. People work together. The collective society is everyone's first consideration, & altruism is the common mindset. Sounds great. Now back to reality. The more people gathered together in close proximity, the higher the likelihood of some going after more than their fair share. Add shortages to the mix, & will sprout like weeds. Welcome to chaos. The problem with Somalia was that they were knowlegable of western systems, where ownership is the be all & end all. You can't have utopian anarchy based on private property. That's why libertarians are living in the smoke of a pipe dream. The Ayn Rand worshiping egoist cult is even crazier.They're the lunatic fringe of the libertarian lunatic fringe. Like her, they deny the very existence of altruism, & claim that mo9rality is something that needs to be thought out. Huh? Enlightened self interest huh? Welcome to Somalia. It doesn't get more enlightened than picking up a gun & taking what you want, if there's no thought for the other guy.

The universal right is to be free from victimization at the hands of others. That doesn't happen when everybody adheres to the moral code. "Everybody" doesn't. That's the flaw in all the oh so very carefully thought out social systems & philosophies.

Anarchy, or anarcho syndicalism, isn't the absence of rule, regulation or management.
It simply challenges positions of authority. And, again, the burden of proof is on those who have authority to prove it is legitimate. This applies to, say, a husband controlling his wife or to the domineering state structure, as it were.
And a anarcho syndicalist society would be highly organized. Actually, more organized than so-called state-capitalism. And, too, would have legitimacy. As everyone would participate in the decision-making process.
I'm not advocating this type of society. I mean, this type of society has never been tried. It may simply not work. (And what people fail to point out is that America was more socialist than the former Soviet Union. I mean, the idea of socialism means people run their own lives.
The Soviet Union was a complete top-down dictatorship. Whereas at one point there were 40 percent of American workers in a union. So, well, that made America far more socialist than the Soviet Union. Again, the Soviet Union was NOT socialist.
Terms like capitalism and socialism have been rendered meaningless. America has never been a capitalist society. Of course, it has elements of capitalism. As, too, did the former Soviet Union. But socialism is: workers control of production. That has never been tried in America. Nor after Lenin took power in 1917. Actually, he crushed the remnants of actual socialism by destroying workers' councils.)

[Ben]

Bob Schieffer, Ron Paul and journalistic “objectivity” (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/24/bob_schieffer_ron_paul_and_journalistic_objectivit y/singleton)

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/)


CBS News‘s Bob Schieffer is the classic American establishment TV journalist: unfailingly deferential to the politically powerful personalities who parade before him, and religiously devoted to what he considers his own “objectivity,” which ostensibly requires that he never let his personal opinions affect or be revealed by his journalism. Watch how thoroughly and even proudly he dispenses with both of those traits when interviewing Ron Paul last Sunday on Face the Nation regarding Paul’s foreign policy views. In this 7-minute clip, Schieffer repeatedly mocks, scoffs at, and displays his obvious contempt for, two claims of Paul’s which virtually no prominent politician of either party would dare express: (1) American interference and aggression in the Muslim world fuels anti-American sentiment and was thus part of the motivation for the 9/11 attack; and (2) American hostility and aggression toward Iran (in the form of sanctions and covert attacks) are more likely to exacerbate problems and lead to war than lead to peaceful resolution, which only dialogue with the Iranians can bring about:
You actually believe 9/11 was America’s fault? Your plan to deal with the Iranian nuclear program is to be nicer to Iran? This interview is worth highlighting because it is a vivid case underscoring several points about the real meaning of the much-vaunted “journalistic objectivity”:
(1) The overarching rule of “journalistic objectivity” is that a journalist must never resolve any part of a dispute between the Democratic and the Republican Parties, even when one side is blatantly lying. They must instead confine themselves only to mindlessly describing what each side claims and leave it at that. Their refusal (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/objective_press_unable_to_label_dishonest_romney_a d_dishonest/) to label Mitt Romney’s first campaign ad to be dishonest — even though it wildly misquoted Obama (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-said-if-we-keep-talking-abo/) — is a perfect example; so, too, was their refusal to call torture “torture” (http://www.salon.com/2009/06/22/npr/) on the ground that Bush officials called it something else. This is also what The Washington Post‘s Congress reporter Paul Kane meant in his widely disparaged (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/knowing-their-marks.html) attack this week on those who condemn the media’s “cult of balance”; when Kane defended the political media’s trite, reflexive both-parties-are-at-fault coverage of the Super Committee’s failure by saying “news coverage should always strive to present both sides of the story,” what he means is: whenever Democratic and GOP leaders say different things, it’s the job of opinion writers — but not us objective reporters — to say what the truth is; our job is simply to faithfully write down what each side says and go home.
To these types of journalists, “objectivity” compels that lies and truths be treated equally and never resolved — that is, when the dispute is between the two parties (they allow themselves exceptions to this mandate — their overt swooning for George Bush and contempt for Al Gore in 2000 was probably the most blatant example, and they also eagerly seize every opportunity presented by sex scandals to self-righteously rail against a political figure because sex is apolitical and thus entails no danger of being accused of political bias — but, in general, mindless neutrality in disputes among the two parties is the prime commandment of their objectivity religion).
(2) When it comes to views not shared by the leadership of the two parties, as in the above excerpt from the Paul interview, everything changes. Views that reside outside of the dogma of the leadership of either party are inherently illegitimate. Such views are generally ignored, but in those rare instances where they find their way into the discourse — such as this Paul interview — it is the duty of “objective” reporters like Schieffer to mock, scorn and attack them. Indeed, many journalists — such as Tim Russert (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html) and David Ignatius (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45001-2004Apr26.html) — excused their failures in the run-up to the Iraq War by pointing to the fact that the leadership of both parties were generally in favor of the war: in other words, since war opposition was rarely found among the parties’ leadership, it did not exist and/or was inherently illegitimate (in a March, 2003 interview (http://www.journalismjobs.com/bob_schieffer.cfm), Schieffer explained what a great job the American media did in the run-up to the war). Relatedly, only members in good standing of the political establishment command deference; those who are situated outside that establishment — and only them — are to be treated with mockery and contempt (that is what explains the overt scorn (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/05/erin_burnett_voice_of_the_people/) by “objective journalists” toward, for instance, the Occupy movement).
I would have no problem with Schieffer’s adversarial behavior here if this were also how he treated claims made by David Petraeus, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. But one would never, ever see that. Part of this is what Jay Rosen calls (http://jayrosen.posterous.com/the-savvy-press-and-their-exemption-from-the) “the Church of the Savvy”: journalists revere power and political success and thus revere those who wield it in their world (Washington) while scorning those who do not (like Paul). But part of it is also that their function is to defend the political establishment of which they are a part and glorify its orthodoxies — defined as: the approved views of the leadership of the two parties, which in turn reflect the interests of the private factions that control both parties (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html) — and, conversely, to try to delegitimize any views and/or persons posing a challenge to it.
This is why one sees truly adversarial conduct from establishment journalists applied only to those who are relatively powerless and marginalized (i,e., OWS), or to those views that have no currency within the political establishment (Paul’s foreign policy/civil liberties arguments) . These journalists are, first and foremost, advocates, defenders, and spokespeople for prevailing establishment wisdom and institutions. They have every right to advocate for those views, but it is anything but “objective.” The problem with the Bob Schieffers of the world isn’t that they ooze political bias and subjectivity; most human beings do. The problem is that they’re fraudulently presented as journalists who don’t.
(3) There is another standard media bias at play in this Schieffer interview which I’ve written about before (http://www.salon.com/2011/02/28/biases/singleton/): most establishment media figures, by definition, are hard-core nationalists who scorn any ideas that suggest their country is at fault for anything. The very suggestion that the United States of America might have done anything to provoke rational hatred against it and thus helped cause 9/11 is like poison in Schieffer’s soul. Similarly, the very suggestion that the U.S. is the aggressor when it comes to Iran — rather than the other way around — is heresy to him (the idea that the U.S. seeks war with Iran will be slanderous to Schieffer up until the minute the first U.S. fighter jet drops a bomb, at which point the war will instantly become necessary and just). That’s because — and this relates to the prior point — their ultimate political allegiance is to the U.S. political establishment (the same one over which they claim to act as Watchdogs), and they cannot abide any arguments that that establishment engages in bad acts: it can periodically make “mistakes” or exercise “poor judgment” (almost always totally understandable and driven by good motives: they over-reacted to 9/11 out of a noble desire to keep us safe), but never engage in truly bad acts. Bad acts are only what America’s enemies do, not America’s political leaders.
That’s why — except on the rare occasions when a Ron Paul worms his way in and causes a glitch in the matrix — one almost never hears in establishment media discourse anyone advocating the view that is commonplace in the Muslim world and many other places on the planet: that the real aggressor is the country that is continuously bombing, invading, drone-attacking, occupying, overthrowing, arming and covertly subverting countless other countries. Media stars like Schieffer find such views so wrong — offensive even — that they should not even be aired, despite how commonplace and influential such views are in so many parts of the world. That’s why he cannot even maintain his objectivity mask as Paul expresses those views: it’s like someone is dumping chlorine down this throat. Again, Schieffer has every right to be a blind nationalist; he should just stop feigning “objectivity.”
Along those lines, Radley Balko has argued (http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/01/the-media-arent-liberal) [link fixed], with ample documentation of the media’s almost unanimous opposition to any form of liberalization of drug laws, that the real bias media is authoritarianism: loyalty to those who wield power. That’s unsurprising: after all, when you watch a media star on TV, what you are seeing in almost every case is an extremely well-paid, high-ranking employee of a major corporate conglomerate. They are the consummate insiders in every single sense. Except in the rarest cases, it would be irrational to expect them to be adversarial to the establishment which is responsible for their status and which lavishes them with so many rewards. Those admitted to the royal court don’t make a habit out of agitating against the King; quite the opposite: they become his most loyal and devoted subjects, the ones most eager to protect and defend the monarchy which guarantees them their wealth and status. That’s all the Bob Schieffers of the world are doing. Again, there’s nothing wrong with it per se, or at least not unusual. It’s just the very opposite of “objectivity.”
Contrary to popular wisdom, there aren’t two types of journalists: those who express opinions and those who are objective. The two types are those who honestly acknowledge their opinions and those who deceitfully pretend such opinions do not influence their journalism. One reason modern establishment journalism has become so corrupted and worthless is because of the conceit that they engage in some sort of objective reporting that is free of bias and opinion, even as they are the stalwart defenders of a clear set of political opinions and interests (those wielded by the same power factions which they pretend to hold accountable). Any time someone is tempted to believe these fairy tales of objectivity, they should just re-watch this Schieffer interview.

Ron Paul Interview On DeFace The Nation 11/20/11 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pf5eJlDupo)

[Ben]

Ron Paul from 3 years ago. Nothin' has changed.... Sadly. Now Europe has a deepening crisis....

Ron Paul - Wall Street Is Only The Beginning! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxlu8SMFEBU&feature=related)

[Ben]

Ron Paul and Alan Grayson: Audit the Fed! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7pGpZW6fWk&feature=player_embedded)

$1.2 Trillion Slush Fund: Congressman Alan Grayson Grills Fed Vice Chair Donald Kohn - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0JAfq4esk)

[Ben]

Powerful Ron Paul 2012 Election Joe Rogan Experience Podcast 160 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVZkKxLXunk)

[Ben]

Andrew Sullivan....
14 Dec 2011 12:32 PM Ron Paul For The GOP Nomination (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html)

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2015438403605970c-550wi (http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2015438403605970c-popup)


The Dish goes through the process of endorsing candidates in a primary season, not because I'm under any illusions that my endorsement counts. It probably hurts an insignificant amount, if anything. I try to make a decision - because it's easy to pontificate, debate, counter and riff off the various eddies in the campaign, but in the end, it comes to a choice for all voters in the booth. Why should a blogger avoid that responsibility? And I should be clear. This endorsement is mine and mine alone.
For a long time, I thought Huntsman would be my ideal candidate. And indeed, his tax reform proposals - modeled on Bowles-Simpson - are dead-on. Removing every single deduction in one heave would do more to empower market-based decisions in the economy and to throw lobbyists out of work than any other single measure. It's the most important, simple, productive move we can make right now and Obama has been a coward and a fool for not embracing it. Alas, the rates Huntsman favors are, to my mind, far too low, given the desperate need for revenues, if we are to tackle the debt seriously. But we are not electing a dictator. We are electing one branch of three that govern us. Huntsman is not the kind of Republican who couldn't compromise with Democrats. The Grand Bargain may become possible again.
On foreign policy, Huntsman also favors a more realist correction to neocon excess, and would build on Obama's remarkable successes, without invoking some of Obama's more worrying bleeding heart tendencies. His longstanding ties to America's most important global partner, China, make him uniquely qualified to take that relationship to a new level. Unlike Romney, he is not for starting a trade war. And his sanity on climate change - certainty that it is man-made but real skepticism about how to tackle it - is, in my view, the conservative position. And, almost alone among the Republicans, he acknowledges that gay people exist and that our committed relationships merit recognition in the law.
So why not Huntsman? The sad truth is: he simply hasn't connected with the voters, generates little enthusiasm, and has run a mediocre campaign. He started timidly, and failed from the get-go to make a clear distinction between him and Romney. He isn't even campaigning in Iowa; and remains behind in New Hampshire. Nationally, he is at a sad 3.2 percent, a number that has barely budged since the summer. For all intents and purposes, he is a one-state candidate. I welcome his participation but view it as a marker for 2016, if the GOP crashes and burns next year, as they well might with Newt Romney. With such a defeat (and one would hope it is decisive), there will be an opportunity to rebuild a reality-based conservatism. And Huntsman may well be the man to lead it. I sure hope so.
Which brings me to Ron Paul. Let me immediately say I do not support many of his nuttier policy proposals. I am not a doctrinaire libertarian. Paul's campaign for greater oversight of the Fed is great, but abolition of it is utopian and dangerous. A veto of anything but an immediately balanced budget would tip the US and the world into a serious downturn (a process to get there in one or two terms makes much more sense). Cutting taxes as he wants to is also fiscally irresponsible without spending cuts first. He adds deductions to the tax code rather than abolish them. His energy policy would intensify our reliance on carbon, not decrease it. He has no policy for the uninsured. There are times when he is rightly described as a crank. He has had associations in the past that are creepy when not downright ugly.
But all this is why a conservative like me is for Obama. What we are talking about here is who to support in a primary dominated by extremes, resentment, absence of ideas and Obama-hatred.
And I see in Paul none of the resentment that burns in Gingrich or the fakeness that defines Romney or the fascistic strains in Perry's buffoonery. He has yet to show the Obama-derangement of his peers, even though he differs with him. He has now gone through two primary elections without compromising an inch of his character or his philosophy. This kind of rigidity has its flaws, but, in the context of the Newt Romney blur, it is refreshing. He would never take $1.8 million from Freddie Mac. He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did. He would never speak of lynching Bernanke, as Perry threatened. When he answers a question, you can see that he is genuinely listening to it and responding - rather than searching, Bachmann-like, for the one-liner to rouse the base. He is, in other words, a decent fellow, and that's an adjective I don't use lightly. We need more decency among Republicans.
And on some core issues, he is right. He is right that spending - especially on entitlements and defense - is way out of control. Unlike his peers, he had the balls to say so when Bush and Cheney were wrecking the country's finances, and rendering us close to helpless when the Great Recession came bearing down. Alas, he lacks the kind of skills at compromise, moderation and restraint that once defined conservatism and now seems entirely reserved for liberals. But who else in this field would? Romney would have to prove his base cred for his entire presidency. Gingrich is a radical utopian and supremely nasty fantasist.
I don't believe Romney or Gingrich would cut entitlements as drastically as Paul. But most important, I don't believe that any of the other candidates, except perhaps Huntsman, would cut the military-industrial complex as deeply as it needs to be cut. What Paul understands - and it's why he has so much young support - is that the world has changed. Seeking global hegemony in a world of growing regional powers among developing nations is a fool's game, destined to provoke as much backlash as lash, and financially disastrous as every failed empire in history has shown.
We do not need tens of thousands of troops in Europe. We do not need to prevent China's rise, but to accommodate it as prudently as possible. We do need to get out of the Middle East to the maximum extent and return our relationship with Israel to one between individual nations, with different interests and common ideals, not some divine compact between two Zions. We do need a lighter, more focused, more lethal war against Jihadism - but this cannot ever again mean occupying countries we do not understand and cannot control. I suspect every other Republican would launch a war against Iran. Paul wouldn't. That alone makes a vote for him worthwhile.
Breaking the grip of neoconservative belligerence on conservative thought and the Republican party could make space again for more reasoned and seasoned managers of foreign policy. Embracing the diversity of a multi-cultural, multi-faith America is incompatible with Christianism and the ugly anti-illegal immigrant fervor among the Republican base. But it is perfectly compatible with a modest, humble libertarianism that allows a society to find its own way, without constant meddling and intervention in people's lives. Just as vitally, no other Republican (or Democrat) would end the war on drugs, one of the most counter-productive, authoritarian campaigns against individual liberty this country has known since Prohibition.
He could also begin to unwind the imperial presidency. We would no longer go to war without a full Congressional vote and approval. Torture would not return under Paul, making it more likely that we can contain that virus to the criminal regime of Cheney and Bush. Politics would be marked more by what wasn't done, rather than what was - a truly conservative move and in stark contrast with the man who really would have made a good Marxist, Newt Gingrich.
The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has "zero chance" of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie. Nationally, Paul is third in the polls at 9.7 percent. In Iowa, he may win. In New Hampshire, it is Paul, not Gingrich, who is rising this week as Romney drifts down. He's at 19 percent, compared with Gingrich's 24. He is the third option for the GOP. And I believe an Obama-Paul campaign would do us all a service. We would have a principled advocate for a radically reduced role for government, and a principled advocate for a more activist role. If Republicans want a real debate about government and its role, they have no better spokesman. He is the intellectual of the field, not Gingrich.
I am, like many others these days, politically homeless. A moderate, restrained limited government conservatism that seeks to amend, not to revolt, to reform, not to revolutionize, is unavailable. I'm a Tory who has come to see universal healthcare as a moral necessity that requires some minimal government support, who wants government support for a flailing reovery now, but serious austerity once we recover. I favor massive private and public investment in non-carbon energy, because I am a conservative who does not believe our materialism trumps the need for conseraving our divine inheritance. I back marriage equality and marijuana legalization as Burkean adjustments to a changing society. I see a role for government where Paul doesn't.
But Paul's libertarianism may be the next best thing available in the GOP. It would ensure real pressure to make real cuts in entitlements and defense; it would extricate America from the religious wars of the Middle East, where we do not belong. It would challenge the statist, liberal and progressive delusion that for every problem there is a solution, let alone a solution devised by government. As part of offering the world a decent, tolerant conservatism, these instincts are welcome. As an antidote - and a very strong one - to the fiscal recklessness and lawless belligerence of Bush-Cheney, it is hard to beat. The Tea Party, for all their flaws, are right about spending and the crony capitalism it foments. So is Paul.
I regard this primary campaign as the beginning of a process to save conservatism from itself. In this difficult endeavor, Paul has kept his cool, his good will, his charm, his honesty and his passion. His scorn is for ideas, not people, but he knows how to play legitimate political hardball. Look at his ads - the best of the season so far. His worldview is too extreme for my tastes, but it is more honestly achieved than most of his competitors, and joined to a temperament that has worn well as time has gone by.
I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the "Change You Can Believe In" on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. If you are a Republican concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.
Oh, and fuck you, Roger Ailes.

[onmyknees]

Andrew Sullivan....
14 Dec 2011 12:32 PM Ron Paul For The GOP Nomination (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html)

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2015438403605970c-550wi (http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2015438403605970c-popup)


The Dish goes through the process of endorsing candidates in a primary season, not because I'm under any illusions that my endorsement counts. It probably hurts an insignificant amount, if anything. I try to make a decision - because it's easy to pontificate, debate, counter and riff off the various eddies in the campaign, but in the end, it comes to a choice for all voters in the booth. Why should a blogger avoid that responsibility? And I should be clear. This endorsement is mine and mine alone.
For a long time, I thought Huntsman would be my ideal candidate. And indeed, his tax reform proposals - modeled on Bowles-Simpson - are dead-on. Removing every single deduction in one heave would do more to empower market-based decisions in the economy and to throw lobbyists out of work than any other single measure. It's the most important, simple, productive move we can make right now and Obama has been a coward and a fool for not embracing it. Alas, the rates Huntsman favors are, to my mind, far too low, given the desperate need for revenues, if we are to tackle the debt seriously. But we are not electing a dictator. We are electing one branch of three that govern us. Huntsman is not the kind of Republican who couldn't compromise with Democrats. The Grand Bargain may become possible again.
On foreign policy, Huntsman also favors a more realist correction to neocon excess, and would build on Obama's remarkable successes, without invoking some of Obama's more worrying bleeding heart tendencies. His longstanding ties to America's most important global partner, China, make him uniquely qualified to take that relationship to a new level. Unlike Romney, he is not for starting a trade war. And his sanity on climate change - certainty that it is man-made but real skepticism about how to tackle it - is, in my view, the conservative position. And, almost alone among the Republicans, he acknowledges that gay people exist and that our committed relationships merit recognition in the law.
So why not Huntsman? The sad truth is: he simply hasn't connected with the voters, generates little enthusiasm, and has run a mediocre campaign. He started timidly, and failed from the get-go to make a clear distinction between him and Romney. He isn't even campaigning in Iowa; and remains behind in New Hampshire. Nationally, he is at a sad 3.2 percent, a number that has barely budged since the summer. For all intents and purposes, he is a one-state candidate. I welcome his participation but view it as a marker for 2016, if the GOP crashes and burns next year, as they well might with Newt Romney. With such a defeat (and one would hope it is decisive), there will be an opportunity to rebuild a reality-based conservatism. And Huntsman may well be the man to lead it. I sure hope so.
Which brings me to Ron Paul. Let me immediately say I do not support many of his nuttier policy proposals. I am not a doctrinaire libertarian. Paul's campaign for greater oversight of the Fed is great, but abolition of it is utopian and dangerous. A veto of anything but an immediately balanced budget would tip the US and the world into a serious downturn (a process to get there in one or two terms makes much more sense). Cutting taxes as he wants to is also fiscally irresponsible without spending cuts first. He adds deductions to the tax code rather than abolish them. His energy policy would intensify our reliance on carbon, not decrease it. He has no policy for the uninsured. There are times when he is rightly described as a crank. He has had associations in the past that are creepy when not downright ugly.
But all this is why a conservative like me is for Obama. What we are talking about here is who to support in a primary dominated by extremes, resentment, absence of ideas and Obama-hatred.
And I see in Paul none of the resentment that burns in Gingrich or the fakeness that defines Romney or the fascistic strains in Perry's buffoonery. He has yet to show the Obama-derangement of his peers, even though he differs with him. He has now gone through two primary elections without compromising an inch of his character or his philosophy. This kind of rigidity has its flaws, but, in the context of the Newt Romney blur, it is refreshing. He would never take $1.8 million from Freddie Mac. He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did. He would never speak of lynching Bernanke, as Perry threatened. When he answers a question, you can see that he is genuinely listening to it and responding - rather than searching, Bachmann-like, for the one-liner to rouse the base. He is, in other words, a decent fellow, and that's an adjective I don't use lightly. We need more decency among Republicans.
And on some core issues, he is right. He is right that spending - especially on entitlements and defense - is way out of control. Unlike his peers, he had the balls to say so when Bush and Cheney were wrecking the country's finances, and rendering us close to helpless when the Great Recession came bearing down. Alas, he lacks the kind of skills at compromise, moderation and restraint that once defined conservatism and now seems entirely reserved for liberals. But who else in this field would? Romney would have to prove his base cred for his entire presidency. Gingrich is a radical utopian and supremely nasty fantasist.
I don't believe Romney or Gingrich would cut entitlements as drastically as Paul. But most important, I don't believe that any of the other candidates, except perhaps Huntsman, would cut the military-industrial complex as deeply as it needs to be cut. What Paul understands - and it's why he has so much young support - is that the world has changed. Seeking global hegemony in a world of growing regional powers among developing nations is a fool's game, destined to provoke as much backlash as lash, and financially disastrous as every failed empire in history has shown.
We do not need tens of thousands of troops in Europe. We do not need to prevent China's rise, but to accommodate it as prudently as possible. We do need to get out of the Middle East to the maximum extent and return our relationship with Israel to one between individual nations, with different interests and common ideals, not some divine compact between two Zions. We do need a lighter, more focused, more lethal war against Jihadism - but this cannot ever again mean occupying countries we do not understand and cannot control. I suspect every other Republican would launch a war against Iran. Paul wouldn't. That alone makes a vote for him worthwhile.
Breaking the grip of neoconservative belligerence on conservative thought and the Republican party could make space again for more reasoned and seasoned managers of foreign policy. Embracing the diversity of a multi-cultural, multi-faith America is incompatible with Christianism and the ugly anti-illegal immigrant fervor among the Republican base. But it is perfectly compatible with a modest, humble libertarianism that allows a society to find its own way, without constant meddling and intervention in people's lives. Just as vitally, no other Republican (or Democrat) would end the war on drugs, one of the most counter-productive, authoritarian campaigns against individual liberty this country has known since Prohibition.
He could also begin to unwind the imperial presidency. We would no longer go to war without a full Congressional vote and approval. Torture would not return under Paul, making it more likely that we can contain that virus to the criminal regime of Cheney and Bush. Politics would be marked more by what wasn't done, rather than what was - a truly conservative move and in stark contrast with the man who really would have made a good Marxist, Newt Gingrich.
The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has "zero chance" of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie. Nationally, Paul is third in the polls at 9.7 percent. In Iowa, he may win. In New Hampshire, it is Paul, not Gingrich, who is rising this week as Romney drifts down. He's at 19 percent, compared with Gingrich's 24. He is the third option for the GOP. And I believe an Obama-Paul campaign would do us all a service. We would have a principled advocate for a radically reduced role for government, and a principled advocate for a more activist role. If Republicans want a real debate about government and its role, they have no better spokesman. He is the intellectual of the field, not Gingrich.
I am, like many others these days, politically homeless. A moderate, restrained limited government conservatism that seeks to amend, not to revolt, to reform, not to revolutionize, is unavailable. I'm a Tory who has come to see universal healthcare as a moral necessity that requires some minimal government support, who wants government support for a flailing reovery now, but serious austerity once we recover. I favor massive private and public investment in non-carbon energy, because I am a conservative who does not believe our materialism trumps the need for conseraving our divine inheritance. I back marriage equality and marijuana legalization as Burkean adjustments to a changing society. I see a role for government where Paul doesn't.
But Paul's libertarianism may be the next best thing available in the GOP. It would ensure real pressure to make real cuts in entitlements and defense; it would extricate America from the religious wars of the Middle East, where we do not belong. It would challenge the statist, liberal and progressive delusion that for every problem there is a solution, let alone a solution devised by government. As part of offering the world a decent, tolerant conservatism, these instincts are welcome. As an antidote - and a very strong one - to the fiscal recklessness and lawless belligerence of Bush-Cheney, it is hard to beat. The Tea Party, for all their flaws, are right about spending and the crony capitalism it foments. So is Paul.
I regard this primary campaign as the beginning of a process to save conservatism from itself. In this difficult endeavor, Paul has kept his cool, his good will, his charm, his honesty and his passion. His scorn is for ideas, not people, but he knows how to play legitimate political hardball. Look at his ads - the best of the season so far. His worldview is too extreme for my tastes, but it is more honestly achieved than most of his competitors, and joined to a temperament that has worn well as time has gone by.
I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the "Change You Can Believe In" on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. If you are a Republican concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.
Oh, and fuck you, Roger Ailes.


NOOOOOOOO...........Fuck You and your obsession with Sarah Palin's womb , Andrew Sullivan. I may or may not vote for Paul, but it certainly won't be because Andrew Sullivan is running around with his skirt pulled up over his head hysterical. The dude's repulsive. He's the Perez Hilton of the Republican Party. Fuck Him

[Ben]

Right Now Ron Paul Is Scaring The Republican Establishment In A Very Profound Way! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V92CU0xnJjI)

[Ben]

The English author and journalist George Monbiot has his take on libertarianism. (What gets little attention in the American mainstream is left-leaning libertarianism... associated with the likes of Rudolf Rocker and Emma Goldman.)
The American libertarianism we often hear about veers to the right. Which means: they're right about foreign policy -- ha ha! :))

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Bastardized Libertarianism Makes 'Freedom' an Instrument of Oppression It's the disguise used by those who wish to exploit without restraint, denying the need for the state to protect the 99%

by George Monbiot (http://www.commondreams.org/george-monbiot)


Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. Throughout the right-wing press and blogosphere, among thinktanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the 1% subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous with injustice?
In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public healthcare; the government rips up our planning laws; big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor.
Right-wing libertarianism recognizes few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. In the UK it is forcefully promoted by groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/), the Adam Smith Institute (http://www.adamsmith.org/), the Institute of Economic Affairs (http://www.iea.org.uk/), and Policy Exchange (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/). Their concept of freedom looks to me like nothing but a justification for greed.
http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/freedom-for-all.jpgSo why have we been been so slow to challenge this concept of liberty? I believe that one of the reasons is as follows. The great political conflict of our age – between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side, and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other – has been mischaracterized as a clash between negative and positive freedoms. These freedoms were most clearly defined by Isaiah Berlin in his essay of 1958, Two concepts of Liberty. It is a work of beauty: reading it is like listening to a gloriously crafted piece of music. I will try not to mangle it too badly.
Put briefly and crudely, negative freedom is the freedom to be or to act without interference from other people. Positive freedom is freedom from inhibition: it's the power gained by transcending social or psychological constraints. Berlin explained how positive freedom had been abused by tyrannies, particularly by the Soviet Union. It portrayed its brutal governance as the empowerment of the people, who could achieve a higher freedom by subordinating themselves to a collective single will.
Rightwing libertarians claim that greens and social justice campaigners are closet communists trying to resurrect Soviet conceptions of positive freedom. In reality, the battle mostly consists of a clash between negative freedoms.
As Berlin noted: "No man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'." So, he argued, some people's freedom must sometimes be curtailed "to secure the freedom of others". In other words, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The negative freedom not to have our noses punched is the freedom that green and social justice campaigns, exemplified by the Occupy movement, exist to defend.
Berlin also shows that freedom can intrude on other values, such as justice, equality or human happiness. "If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral." It follows that the state should impose legal restraints on freedoms that interfere with other people's freedoms – or on freedoms which conflict with justice and humanity.
These conflicts of negative freedom were summarized in one of the greatest poems of the 19th century, which could be seen as the founding document of British environmentalism. In The Fallen Elm (http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/john-clare/the-fallen-elm/), John Clare describes the felling of the tree he loved, presumably by his landlord, that grew beside his home. "Self-interest saw thee stand in freedom's ways / So thy old shadow must a tyrant be. / Thou'st heard the knave, abusing those in power, / Bawl freedom loud and then oppress the free."
The landlord was exercising his freedom to cut the tree down. In doing so, he was intruding on Clare's freedom to delight in the tree, whose existence enhanced his life. The landlord justifies this destruction by characterizing the tree as an impediment to freedom – his freedom, which he conflates with the general liberty of humankind. Without the involvement of the state (which today might take the form of a tree preservation order) the powerful man could trample the pleasures of the powerless man. Clare then compares the felling of the tree with further intrusions on his liberty. "Such was thy ruin, music-making elm; / The right of freedom was to injure thine: / As thou wert served, so would they overwhelm / In freedom's name the little that is mine."
But right-wing libertarians do not recognize this conflict. They speak, like Clare's landlord, as if the same freedom affects everybody in the same way. They assert their freedom to pollute, exploit, even – among the gun nuts – to kill, as if these were fundamental human rights. They characterize any attempt to restrain them as tyranny. They refuse to see that there is a clash between the freedom of the pike and the freedom of the minnow.
Last week, on an internet radio channel called The Fifth Column (http://www.thefifthcolumn.co.uk/), I debated climate change with Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas (http://www.instituteofideas.com/), one of the rightwing libertarian groups that rose from the ashes of the Revolutionary Communist party. Fox is a feared interrogator on the BBC show The Moral Maze (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze/moralmaze_claire_fox.shtml). Yet when I asked her a simple question – "do you accept that some people's freedoms intrude upon other people's freedoms?" – I saw an ideology shatter like a windscreen. I used the example of a Romanian lead-smelting plant I had visited in 2000, whose freedom to pollute is shortening the lives of its neighbors. Surely the plant should be regulated in order to enhance the negative freedoms – freedom from pollution, freedom from poisoning – of its neighbors? She tried several times to answer it, but nothing coherent emerged which would not send her crashing through the mirror of her philosophy.
Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardized, one-eyed philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrongfoot justice by pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned "freedom" into an instrument of oppression.


© 2011 Guardian/UK

[Ben]

Ron Paul Hate From Establishment Republicans - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPDTkeYjFs&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=1&feature=plcp)

[Dino Velvet]

Fuck it. I think I'm back to voting for him again. There's nobody else. Ben's fault.

[Ben]

Fuck it. I think I'm back to voting for him again. There's nobody else. Ben's fault.

Ha ha!
The thing I like about Paul: he's honest. Even if you strenuously disagree with him, well, you know he's authentic.
As The Young Turks point out: (Paul) isn't interested in corrupt politics. I mean, that's the backbone of government: dirty deals, bribery (albeit they don't call it that), racketeering.... Call it what you like. It's dishonest. Corrupt.
So, Paul will vigorously try and end the crime scene in the Capitol. Will he be successful? Possibly. But he'll have a helluva fight on his hands.
The corporate bosses won't like Paul steppin' on their turf. The cozy relationship between big business and politicians is oh sooo sweet.
I mean, Paul wants drastic spending cuts.... Cuts in payola to firms like Halliburton. Think they're gonna like a Paul presidency?
What about cuts in military spending? ('Cause Paul is a fiscal conservative. Not like all these Republican and Democratic pretenders, these sham fiscal so-called conservatives.)

[Ben]

Interesting.

Digby & Sam Talk Ron Paul, Gary Johnson & Libertarianism in 2012 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsJ_blq9AJs)

[Ben]

Ron Paul's more sinister than 'peace, love and no jail for pot' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU2FrtJKS4I)

Ron Paul Staffer on Racist, Homophobic & Anti-Israel Claims - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi3z37w47K8&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=7&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Ron Paul: Drug War Has Racist Roots (1988) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7M9eYHjCKQ&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=7&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Ron Paul Unconstitutional Mash-Up - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z17hBEZpu2E&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=8&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Ron Paul Doubles Down On War Stance - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odlEuyDxAOk)

[Ben]

Gingrich wouldn't vote for Ron Paul (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/27/gingrich-wouldnt-vote-for-ron-paul/)

Posted by
CNN's Kevin Liptak (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnns-kevin-liptak/)

(CNN) - Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if the Texas congressman won the 2012 GOP nomination.
Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Gingrich slammed Paul as out of line with mainstream Republican viewpoints, including his stance on Israel, Iran, and September 11.

"I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."
Gingrich continued: "He's got to come up with some very straight answers to get somebody to take him seriously. Would I be willing to listen to him? Sure. I think the choice of Ron Paul or Barack Obama would be a very bad choice for America."
When asked if he would be able to vote for Paul if his rival won the 2012 GOP nomination, Gingrich said unequivocally "No."
"I think it's very difficult to see how you would engage in dealing with Ron Paul as a nominee," Gingrich said. "Given the newsletters, which he has not yet disowned. He would have to go a long way to explain himself and I think it would be very difficult to see today, Ron Paul as the Republican nominee."
Paul's role in writing newsletters with racist remarks came under increased scrutiny last week as polls showed the Texas rising in popularity among Iowa voters. The most recent, from the American Research Group, shows Paul, Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a dead heat for first place. Paul has indicated he did not write all of the content in his newsletters and had not read some of it before publication.
In responding to negative ads Paul's campaign has released slamming Gingrich's record as a conservative, the former House speaker said the spots were inaccurate.
"You look at Ron Paul's record of systemic avoidance of reality, his ads are about as accurate as his newsletter," Gingrich said.
Gingrich named Paul's stance on Iran as representative of Paul's extremist viewpoints.
"He's not going to get the nomination. It won't happen," Gingrich said. "The people in the United States are not going to accept somebody who thinks it's irrelevant if Iran gets a nuclear weapon."
Paul's campaign responded to Gingrich Tuesday, calling his remarks "childish."
"Frustration from his floundering campaign has Newt Gingrich showing who he really is: a divisive, big-government liberal," Paul Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton said. "Newt has a long record of standing against conservatives dating back to his support for liberal Nelson Rockefeller over Barry Goldwater, so this sort of childish outburst is nothing new."

[Ben]

The uber (or excessive) right-wingers are going after Paul:

John Bolton: Ron Paul's Foreign Policy WORSE than Obama's - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U2rM_SS2zs)

[Ben]

Ron Paul Shows Left Ugly Truths about Obama? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP-lQNsjMOU&feature=channel_video_title)


The media’s real problem in Iowa: The overall coverage of the caucus has been incredibly expensive -- and disturbingly lazy:

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/the_medias_real_problem_in_iowa/singleton/

[Ben]

Eavesdrop on the Web's Most Interesting Ron Paul Debate:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/eavesdrop-on-the-webs-most-interesting-ron-paul-debate/250725/

[Ben]

Is Ron Paul Really a Libertarian?

Is Ron Paul Really a Libertarian? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt40r4vgoQI)

[Ben]

Ron Paul and the Banks

By SIMON JOHNSON (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/author/simon-johnson/)http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/business/economix/simon-johnson.jpg
Simon Johnson (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/business/economy/simonjohnson.ready.html), the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/international_monetary_fund/index.html?inline=nyt-org), is the co-author of “13 Bankers (http://13bankers.com/).”


We should take Ron Paul seriously. The Texas congressman had an impressive showing in the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday and his poll numbers elsewhere are resilient – he is running a strong third among Republicans nationally (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html) and is currently second in New Hampshire polling (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire). He may well become the Republican candidate with populist momentum and energy in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Paul also has a clearly articulated view on the American banking system, laid out forcefully in his 2009 book, “End the Fed (http://www.hachettebookgroup.com/books_9780446549196.htm).” This book and its bottom-line recommendation that the United States should return to the gold standard – and abolish the Federal Reserve System – tend to be dismissed out of hand by many. That’s a mistake, because Mr. Paul makes many sensible and well-informed points.
But there is a curious disconnect between his diagnosis and his proposed cure, and this disconnect tells us a great deal about why this version of populism from the right is unlikely to make much progress in its current form.

There is much that is thoughtful in Mr. Paul’s book, including statements like this (on Page 18...)
Just so that we are clear: the modern system of money and banking is not a free-market system. It is a system that is half socialized – propped up by the government – and one that could never be sustained as it is in a clean market environment.
Mr. Paul is also broadly correct that the Federal Reserve has become, in part, a key mechanism through which large banks are rescued from their own folly, so that their management gets the upside when things go well and the realization of any downside risks is shoved onto other people.
If you don’t like this characterization of the American system, turn your attention to Europe and the euro zone – where the European Central Bank is busy propping up banks (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/global/demand-for-ecb-loans-surpasses-expectations.html) with “liquidity” (in the form of three-year loans), in part hoping that these financial institutions can, in turn, support the government bond market.
There are no Ron Paul-type populists in Europe – at least I have never come across a mainstream politician there wanting to abolish any central bank. But I predict that related views will pick up European adherents in the months ahead — for example, as people in Germany increasingly worry about the actions of the European Central Bank and want to go back to some version of their own Bundesbank, which was very careful about not creating inflation.
Mr. Paul represents an important strand of American libertarian thinking, seeing the root of all financial evil in the role of the government – and tracing this back to what he sees as deviations from the Constitution, made possible by the Supreme Court (beginning with McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819; I recommend “Aggressive Nationalism: McCulloch v. Maryland and the Foundation of Federal Authority in the Young Republic (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/LegalHistory/?view=usa&ci=9780195323566),” by Richard E. Ellis, if you’d like to read more on that key episode).
Mr. Paul’s argument goes too far in this direction, however, including statements like “the Supreme Court has never been a friend of sound money and has rarely been a protector of the Constitution” (on Page 168. His book would also be more convincing if it relied a little less exclusively on sources produced by a single publisher, the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://mises.org/).
The gold standard is, to Mr. Paul, a panacea, because it would restrict the role of the government and what a central bank could do. In fact, in his version of the gold standard – which is not the one that generally prevailed – there is no role for a central bank whatsoever.
But Mr. Paul’s book also acknowledges the imbalance of power within the financial system that prevailed at the end of the 19th century. Wall Street financiers, like J.P. Morgan, were among the most powerful Americans of their day. In the crisis of 1907, it was Morgan who essentially decided which financial institutions would be saved and who must go to the wolves.
Would abolishing the Fed really create a paradise for entrepreneurial banking start-ups, enabling them to challenge and overthrow the megabanks?
Or would it just concentrate even more power in the hands of the largest financial players? It is hard to find a moment of greater inequality of power than that of the Gilded Age of the late 1800s – with the gold standard and the associated credit system firmly working to the advantage of J.P. Morgan and his colleagues.
Mr. Paul insists that “in a competitive and free system, deposits would not be unsafe; any that were not paid back that were promised would fall under the laws of protection against fraud” (Page 27).
Again, this seems to mistake the true nature of power both in modern American society and in a world without any limit on the scale and nature of banks. Laws and rules do not drop from the sky; they are shaped in minute detail by an intense and very expensive lobbying process. (For a prominent and credible example, see Jeff Connaughton’s latest piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-connaughton/the-glacial-response-of-t_b_1181378.html) in The Huffington Post on how slow the Securities and Exchange Commission has been to deal with concerns about high-frequency trading.)
There is nothing on Mr. Paul’s campaign Web site (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/end-the-fed/) about breaking the size and power of the big banks that now predominate. “End the Fed” is also frustratingly evasive on this issue.
Mr. Paul should address this issue head-on — for example, by confronting the very specific and credible proposals made by Jon Huntsman, who would force the biggest banks (http://jon2012.com/index.php/issues/financial-reform-ending-too-big-to-fail) to break themselves up. The only way to restore the market is to compel the most powerful players to become smaller.
Ending the Fed – even if that were possible or desirable – would not end the problem of too-big-to-fail banks. The only credible way to threaten not to bail them out is to insist that even the largest bank is not big enough to bring down the financial system.

[Ben]

Sam Seder makes an interesting point. He says that Paul isn't a libertarian perse. He simply wants to dismantle the Federal government. And basically States can do what they like.

Why Not Vote For Ron Paul? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUmEl99PZ3Q&feature=channel_video_title)

[Ben]

ANDREW SULLIVAN:

Why Ron Paul Is Right And Barack Obama Is Wrong About Iran (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/why-ron-paul-is-right-and-president-obama-is-wrong-about-iran.html)

One of the key things that Ron Paul has contributed to our discourse is the notion that we should try and look at conflict from the point of view of our foe. You'd think this would be obvious if we are attempting to influence, say, Iran's behavior, to understand their fears, their baseline interests and their ideology. So far, all we hear about is their ideology. But let's broaden our moral imagination (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/sparking-the-moral-imagination.html) in ways not allowed (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/the-wapo-against-paul.html) in the Washington Post.
Imagine that three scientists working on the US nuclear arsenal were assassinated in the streets of Chicago or Washington or Los Angeles by agents of Iran. Now imagine that an explosion took place at one of our nuclear facilities - also engineered by Iran. Also imagine that Iran was capable of blockading US ports to cripple the US economy. Imagine the dollar collapsing because of this and a new depression initiated. What do you think Mitt Romney would be saying? I suspect he would be saying that Iran has already declared war on the US.
But all these things have happened in Iran, probably by the hands of Israeli intelligence, perhaps by the US, or some combo of the two. Is it surprising that the Iranians are throwing rhetoric around, even if much of it is empty? Of course not. Vali Nasr argues (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/hard-line-u-s-policy-tips-iran-toward-belligerence-vali-nasr.html) that Iran is already on a war-footing because of this:
Iran has interpreted sanctions that hurt its oil exports, which account for about half of government revenue, as acts of war.
Who alone among the presidential candidates gets this? Only Ron Paul. Bob Wright has a must-read (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/ron-paul-vindicated-on-iran-unfortunately/250955/) on the potential president's lonely sanity on this question. Jon Rauch also notes (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/01/06/010612-opinions-column-iran-nuclear-rauch-1-2/) that the debate we're having about Iran is very very similar to the debate we once had about China's nuclear capacity:
Fifty years ago, [China] was the Iran of its day, a rising regional power that was radical, ideological, boldly antagonistic. It fought the U.S. in Korea, attacked India and Taiwan, supported violent insurgencies and more. Its leader, Mao Zedong, mused that killing half of mankind might be a price worth paying to make the world socialist. Understandably alarmed, some of President Eisenhower’s advisers urged a pre-emptive nuclear attack. (Ike wisely forbore.) President Kennedy said a nuclear China would dominate Southeast Asia and "so upset the world political scene" as to be "intolerable."
Notice the classic Kennedy recklessness in foreign policy (he was George W Bush avant la lettre), and the characteristic Eisenhower sanity. Now look at the history. Since China's adoption of nuclear status, it has actually behaved more responsibly abroad, not less. Jon makes a very persuasive case that nuclear weapons really don't give countries much of an edge, and, if anything, tend to calm them down, especially if they are in a region where they have foes who do have such weapons.
The Obama administration has foolishly decreed that it will never allow a nuclear-armed Iran. It's foolish because at some point, Iran will get one, and the US will therefore have to go to war either to stop it or to punish Iran for it. The obvious option - containment - is foregone.
Obama also argues that he opposes Iran's nukes because of proliferation in the region. At which point one must loudly cough "Ahem." Only one country in the region has illegally, in defiance of internatinal law and the NPT and US policy, has nuclear weapons and it's Israel, not any Arab state. More absurdly, the US government has a formal policy of never acknowledging this fact. At one point in the not-so-distant past, the US government was committed to the view that Iraq had nukes but Israel didn't.
When will the US evolve a sane policy in the Middle East? One that advances our interests, avoids a catastrophic global religious war, and bases it judgment on history and statecraft rather than religion and a US-Israel alliance that, since the end of the Cold War, has become increasingly unhealthy to both parties? Less Kennedy, more Eisenhower, please.

[Ben]

Environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology

By Matt Bruenig (http://mattbruenig.com/author/matt-bruenig/) On December 21, 2011 · In Environment (http://mattbruenig.com/category/environment/)
George Monbiot had an article in the Guardian on Monday (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-libertarianism-makes-freedom-oppression) about bastardised libertarianism and its inability to understand the real freedoms being fought for by environmentalists and social justice advocates. However, Monbiot’s treatment of environmentalism’s threat to libertarianism was a bit sloppy. He got sucked into the negative freedom and positive freedom debate, and although he worked his way to the correct conclusion ultimately, I felt like the clarity was lacking.
So I want to explain more clearly just how much environmentalists stick in the side of libertarian ideology. First, consider what libertarians of the sort Monbiot criticizes are really about philosophically: they favor a procedural justice account of the world based heavily on property rights (http://mattbruenig.com/2011/12/20/the-three-big-conservative-philosophical-frameworks/). This is the newest face of libertarianism. Gone is the appeal to utility and desert. The modern libertarians try to prop up their political ideas almost solely through a rigid formalism of property rights.
I have written before about the problem with the procedural accounts of property rights (http://mattbruenig.com/2011/10/08/arguing-about-property/), but here I want to just accept the libertarian property rights premise. Somehow individuals can grab up pieces of the world and exclude those pieces from everyone else forever. Once those individuals become owners of their respective property, nobody else can touch that property or do anything whatsoever to that property without their consent. Coming onto my property without my consent is a form of trespass under this picture. Doing anything to my property — whether it be painting it, dumping stuff on it, or causing some other harm to it — is totally off limits.
So environmentalists point out that carbon emissions are warming the planet, one consequence of which is that harm will be done to the property of others. Most environmentalists — being the leftists that they generally are — do not make too much of the property rights issues, but one certainly could. Coal plants release particulates into the air which land on other people’s property. But no permission is ever granted for that. Coal plants do not contract with every nearby property owner to allow for them to deposit small amounts of particulate matter on their neighbors’ land. They are guilty of a form of property trespass.
Beyond that, all sorts of industrial processes have environmental externalities that put things into the air or the water that ultimately makes its way into the bodies of others. This is a rights-infringing activity under the procedure-focused libertarian account. The act of some industry is causing pieces of matter to land on me and enter into my body. But I never contracted with them to allow them to do so.
The air and the atmosphere is an especially problematic issue for libertarians. Who owns those things? Libertarians might try to argue that you own the air above your land, but air — or the matter that it is made up of — does not stay above your land; it moves around the world. Any matter released into the air is sure to find itself to someone else’s property, causing a violation. The atmosphere might seem like something nobody owns and therefore something anybody can dump things into. But with climate change, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the world to warm, the consequences of which will include damage to the property of others all over the world. Yet again though, greenhouse gas emitters have not contracted with every single property owner in the world, making their emissions a violation of a very strict libertarian property rights ideology.
The short of is that environmentalists totally smash open the idea that property rights theories can really account for who is permitted to do what with the land that they own. Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from those affected. They are the ethical equivalent — for honest libertarians — of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else’s window.
That is why environmentalism is such a huge problem for libertarians, and it is no doubt why so many of them are skeptical of the effects of climate change or other environmental issues. Admitting that someone’s use of their own property almost certainly entails an infringement on someone else’s property makes the whole libertarian position basically impossible to act out in the real world. A landowner could never get individual contracts with literally every single person that might ever be affected by the owner’s land-use (e.g. operating a coal-burning power plant). But a libertarian that was honest about environmental externalities would require such a landowner to undertake precisely that impossible task.

[Ben]

The Return of the Chickenhawks:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/01/08/the-return-of-the-chickenhawks/

[Ben]

Ron Paul Heated CNN Interview:

Ron Paul Heated CNN Interview - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPNc01P2aKg&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=3&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Why would Dana Bash say she is "worried" that Paul will "continue on long into the Spring and Summer...." Seems a bit odd that she'd be worried.
I mean, worried for Romney? The Republican Party? Again, why would she use that word???

» CNN's Dana Bash "Worried" About Ron Paul's Success Alex Jones' Infowars - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DyW54iyKxY)

[Ben]

Ron Paul's Moment of Racial Clarity

His recent comments about institutional racism defy the GOP norm.

http://www.theroot.com/views/ron-paul-tackles-racism-issue

[Faldur]

http://www.imore.com/images/stories/2009/03/kevin_rose_iphone_30_cut_and_paste.jpg

[onmyknees]

http://www.imore.com/images/stories/2009/03/kevin_rose_iphone_30_cut_and_paste.jpg


LMAO....I'm convinced of Bens political schizophrenia. He loves Ron Paul.........He loves him NOT.

Doesn't make him a bad guy, but it makes him...........well.........
"undecided".

Imagine Ben being randomly interviewed by a TV reporter? "Who are you voting for sir?"

[Ben]

At the 10 min and 20 sec mark Paul talks about institutional racism:

Ron Paul Highlights at the ABC / Yahoo / WMUR Debate in New Hampshire - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fByaNBLYaU)

[bodyguard]

Come on American people are way to dumb to elect Ron Paul as President.

[trish]

Long thought to be vice selfishness is a behavior trait that is generally frowned upon in public, but not among libertarians. Ayn Rand has sought to teach us that selfishness is not a vice, but the opposite; i.e. selfishness is a virtue. Libertarians long for a world where every individual is allowed to pursue and indeed does pursue her own self-interests without interference and of course without interfering in the self-interested pursuits of others.

“Self-interest” is interpreted broadly within libertarian circles. Your self-interests, for example, may include educating your children, participating in the local Parent Teachers Association, giving to charity etc. as long as, in your judgment, you gain a positive return from these activities.

The libertarian conceit is that if everyone pursued their individual self-interests without interference or interfering with the pursuits of others, society will move toward an equilibrium where everyone’s projects and desires are optimally satisfied.

Only in a world where there are no conflicting interests can we have everybody pursuing their own interests without interference and without interfering with the pursuits of others. In the real world, where there are conflicting interests, libertarians require those pursuits be subject to a rational constraint. Libertarians speak of rational self-interests. For example, a libertarian might say that fraud is an irrational pursuit because if you’re caught and word spreads it can be bad for your business. Putting any sort of self-imposed restriction on pursuable self-interests will lessen the number of conflicts, but the rationality restriction will not make conflicts vanish. When there is a conflict between two rational pursuits, the one that survives the conflict is the more rational of the two. If this seems like a shady way to define “more rational” it is. It is essentially trial by fire which might be the ideal way to choose a fireproof fabric but is not the ideal way to decide what is or isn’t rational. The problem for the libertarian is that she would prefer not to appeal to a third party, a government say, or a judge to authoritatively arbitrate a resolution of conflict. In libertarianism, if a conflict arises because two people are pursuing their own rational self-interests, the resolution is most ideally settled through unhampered competition. For the libertarian there should be no big brother who steps in, interferes and mucks up the natural flow of events.

Why not apply the modifier “rational” to the way the society moderates conflict between interests rather than to the interests themselves? For example, it may be rational for society to outlaw fraud but irrational to outlaw all forms of lying. Or it may be rational to settle which hand cream is best through market competition but irrational to decide border disputes by having the disagreeing parties compete for the disputed lands. The problem with this solution is that it allows a third party to step in and decide what is rational. Libertarians would regard that as a resolution of last resort.
It’s the introduction of the term “rational” that creates no end of confusion and difficulty in libertarianism. If everyone could pursue their own self-interests without interference and without interfering in the interests of others, our world would be perfect and there would be no conflicting interests. If the world isn’t perfect, we have to figure out how to rationally regulate our conflicts. How is that done? The libertarian says we simply restrain ourselves by agreeing to only pursue rational self-interests. But what are those? They’re the ones that optimize everyone’s success as we pursue our own individual projects. But how are we to know what those rational self-interests are if we do not consider our interconnected relationship with each other? No one can, by themselves, sit down and judge a self-interest to be one that optimizes the pursuits of everyone else without consulting everyone else. Figuring out what self-interests are rational, in the libertarian sense, is a group endeavor. Yet a libertarian demands the autonomy to decide for herself which of her self-interests are rational and which are not. That even sounds right under the usual interpretation of “rational”. But the usual interpretation won’t do the work required of it by libertarian philosophy.

Nevertheless, libertarians insist their philosophy is coherent and if everyone followed it, society would reach an equilibrium where our liberties are optimized. If true, it is difficult to predict what this equilibrium would look like or in just what sense of optimality our desires will be fulfilled. In the libertarian vision this optimal state is free of “big government.” There will be no government restrictions on trade and all money will be backed by precious metals.

Whereas libertarians see government as an entity that interferes with their self-interested pursuits, others see government as people collectively pursuing their own self-interests. Some of those interests include maintaining the availability of fresh water and safe food, maintaining public safety, public schools, public transportation, police and fire departments, etc. etc. These are generally the things for which libertarians have little use. It’s not that libertarians are against people self-interestedly working collectively toward a common goal; that’s what a business is. The distinction is ... well it’s difficult to discern what the distinction is. Unions and democratic governments are organizations of people united to pursue their own interests, realizing that compromise is sometimes necessary in those pursuits to minimize conflict and maximize individual liberties. Why do libertarians regard the solidarity of laborers to be an irrational interest, but regard the open storage of toxic waste water near fresh water wells to be rational?

Is selfishness a virtue? Socio-biologists attempt to locate altruism in gene complexes that selfishly pursue their reproductive interests. But genes cannot decide for themselves which strategies are rational, that decision is left to the ecological system as a whole and the gods of luck and contingency.

[hippifried]

Nevertheless, libertarians insist their philosophy is coherent and if everyone followed it, society would reach an equilibrium where our liberties are optimized. If true, it is difficult to predict what this equilibrium would look like or in just what sense of optimality our desires will be fulfilled. In the libertarian vision this optimal state is free of “big government.” There will be no government restrictions on trade and all money will be backed by precious metals.
The problem in a nutshell. Not just with libertarianism, but with every utopian social philosophy. None of them can work & tolerate deviance at the same time. They're pipe dreams. All very interesting for academic banter, but any attempt to base governance on any of it is simply out of the question when looking for any kind of "rational" solution to anything. It can't work because there's 6 or 7 billion people on the planet & no 2 people think alike.

I make a distinction between the basic libertarian ideal & the fanaticism of Ayn Rand's egoist philosophy. She didn't invent libertarianism, & the libertarian ideal doesn't deny the existence of altruism. She did. If everything is based on self interest alone, there's no moral code. The real ideal doesn't declare the collective society inconsequential. She did. The ideal isn't necessarily based on acquiring wealth & property. Egoism is. There's no libertarian ideal that seeks to enslave mankind to the gold mystique. The egoist cult does. And yes, they're a cult. I refuse to call them libertarian because they aren't. They're intolerant absolutists, & there's nothing libertarian about that. The attempt to usurp the term is just a lame PR ploy. So is the blatant lie in changing their official name from egoist to "objectivist". Well fuck that! There's nothing objective about this batshit crazy nonsense, & I refuse to surrender a legitimate word in the English language to a bunch of assholes who are just trying to convince the public that they're something else. It's dishonest, & you won't catch me calling them anything but egoist (her term).

Ron Paul has been a politician for a long time. He's gotten real good at hiding his cult affiliation. Regardless of how tangled up in the cult he is though, his positions aren't conservative. He's radical. There's nothing conservative about trying to turn all existing systems & traditions on their head to match some ideology that has never existed in practice.

[trish]

Hello hippiefried.

Indeed libertarianism may trace its roots back at least as far as the liberalism of the Enlightenment that inspired our founders and figured significantly in the thinking of those who overthrew the monarchies and tyrannies of Europe to establish republican forms of government. Skipping forward a couple hundred years, modern libertarianism grounds itself more narrowly in the now outdated, totally unquantifiable, economic mumbo-jumbo of a handful of turn of the century Austrian "economists."

Modern Rand-type-libertarians (the ones you call egoists) believe the the only constraint that should be placed on ego is the self-constraint of what the ego deigns of its own accord to be rational. Rational egos will of course clash, people will be hurt but the strong will survive and the society that evolves will be the one the maximizes everyone's liberty. Right! (It kills me that the people who push this sort of bullshit Darwinism don't believe in Darwinism in the context of biology.) But what is the role of rationalism here? Is the self-constraint imposed by "rational" self-interests supposed to somehow guide the whole system to a more "rational" society. If so, how can one ego decide for itself what actions are rational without consultation and negotiation with other egos. Isn't the agreement to regulate and modify one's actions based on consultation and negotiation with others agreeing to regulation by the group. And if we are going to stake our well-beings on agreements with others, shouldn't we have a way to enforce the agreements? The word "rational," so beloved of objectivists, is fact corrosive to their philosophy. The appeal of egoism is obvious. That it can't work is obvious. So Ayn sprinkled on some rationality, without ever adequately explaining how the term can be non-vacuously interpreted within egoism without destroying egoism.

Deciding what are rational actions and behaviors is an ever ongoing group project.

[Stavros]

If you set aside reason, which these libertarians assume everyone uses, how do libertarians deal with money? Self-interest is elevated to a supreme position but individuals don't mint money, be it coins or paper. Do they assume that the value of the currency in which they transact their self-interests is objectively determined? But by whom? Banks? Who owns and runs the bank and monetary policy? Are there interest rates, and who sets them? I understand the fantasy of libertarian society, but I don't understand the reality.

[Ben]

LMAO....I'm convinced of Bens political schizophrenia. He loves Ron Paul.........He loves him NOT.

Doesn't make him a bad guy, but it makes him...........well.........
"undecided".

Imagine Ben being randomly interviewed by a TV reporter? "Who are you voting for sir?"

Ha ha ha! I, actually, try to be fair and balanced -- :)
I mean, Ron Paul is a politician. Enough said -- ha ha!
I've always said that I agree with Ron Paul on certain issues. And on other issues I strongly disagree. I don't agree with him that the federal government should be, well, essentially dismantled.
But he's the only candidate on either side of the aisle, so to speak, that is speaking out against the wars.
I mean, who can people rally behind if they're against endless wars?
And, too, whereas Obama is atrocious with respect to civil liberties Ron Paul is quite exceptional.
And I, too, agree with Paul with respect to opposing the Patriot Act.

Ron Paul on Extending the Patriot Act - Warrantless Wiretapping and Spying is Bad Policy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNfXR6iX4TI)
Ron Paul’s False Founding Narrative:
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/13/ron-pauls-false-founding-narrative/

[hippifried]

Deciding what are rational actions and behaviors is an ever ongoing group project.

Damn that evil collective! Everybody's so irrational except me...


Stavros,
You're making a mistake by assuming that the egoist cult is speaking the same English language as anyone else in the English speaking world. All their major buzz words (objective, reason, rational, etc...) are PR revisions that bear no resemblance to anything you think you learned in school. It's a way of keeping the lights off. They're like cockroaches.

[Ben]

Kristol: Let Ron Paul Go:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kristol-let-ron-paul-go_617074.html

[Ben]

How Rick Santorum Misunderstands Ron Paul:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/french-diss-how-rick-santorum-misunderstands-ron-paul/251610/

[Ben]

Again, I'm tryin' to be Fair and Balanced:

Ron Paul's False Founding Narrative - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zogU8jZ-gKE)

[Ben]

Author Tim Wise on Paul.... Interesting.

Ron Paul is A-OK with the TSA if Privately Run - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5CHMYkRnoQ)

[Ben]

So Ron Paul DID Know All About Racist Newsletters:

So Ron Paul DID Know All About Racist Newsletters - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stE83K734LM)

[Ben]

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?

GOP plotting to oust Ron Paul? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3iEyAF5BNc)

[Ben]

Ron Paul's view on abortion:

Ron Paul's view on abortion - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_iYEkA1rCg)

[Ben]

Peter Thiel Is Ron Paul's Billionaire Sugar Daddy:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/02/peter-thiel-ron-pauls-billionaire-sugar-daddy/48933/

[Gouki]

Ron's got my vote for sure

[trish]

But Ron's an idiot. He's a died in the wool libertarian who thinks it's just fine for big government to tell women what to do with their own bodies. He believes there should be no regulations protecting you or your property from the pollution and poisons produced by your neighbor's factory, yet he's willing to have government forcefully prevent a woman from undergoing a medical procedure to have a blastocyst vacuumed from her uterus.

[Gouki]

on the contrary Ron believes in the US Constitution and more limited government, he also believes in private property rights but he also believes that what you do on your own property is your own business just so long as you don't hurt anyone which means he would be punishing nuclear reactor owners like GE if, for example, their reactors leaked and caused the surrouding population to get sick as a result (current rules and regs don't hold GE responsible and the tax payers always foot the bill for their screw ups and Ron is Pro-Life (if I delivered more than 4,000 babies I probably would be too) but he believes abortion is state's rights issue though he does support the morning after pill for rape victims

[El Nino]

Ron's got my vote for sure
this

[martin48]

I never fail to be amazed at about half of US voters to desire candidates like Ron Paul why? This guy is different but he's crazy.

http://www.realchange.org/ronpaul.htm

[Ben]

I never fail to be amazed at about half of US voters to desire candidates like Ron Paul why? This guy is different but he's crazy.

http://www.realchange.org/ronpaul.htm

The choices are, well, very limited. I mean, extremely limited.
Look at what the American people are presented with: Mitt, Newt, Rick, President Obama or Paul.
America have over 300 million people and the choices are narrowed down to essentially 5 corporate and corporate-backed candidates.
And even the opinions among the 5 don't vary that much. What separates Paul is his supposed anti-war appeal, as it were.
He's good on some things and, well, quite awful on others.
But, again, the choices aren't that broad. So... I mean, Obama is most likely the most moderate. More moderate than Romney. So, most liberal and social democrats will vote for (not necessarily support) Obama.
We need more political parties in America. We need a more COMPETITIVE race.
If you look at American public opinion polls (America is a heavily polled society) the majority of Americans are what's called: social democratic.
Which so-called Party or presidential candidate serve those social democratic interests? Well, none.
Anyway, both parties are way to the right of the majority of Americans. That's why there's a democratic deficit in America. Which is: a wide gulf between public policy and public opinion.
We bear witness to a daily attack on meaningful democracy in America.

[Ben]

Will 5 Rich Donors Choose The Next President? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cU17DMok20&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=1&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

The story at USA Today:

25% of super PAC money coming from just 5 rich donors:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-21/super-pac-donors/53196658/1

[Ben]

But Ron's an idiot. He's a died in the wool libertarian who thinks it's just fine for big government to tell women what to do with their own bodies. He believes there should be no regulations protecting you or your property from the pollution and poisons produced by your neighbor's factory, yet he's willing to have government forcefully prevent a woman from undergoing a medical procedure to have a blastocyst vacuumed from her uterus.

Some people don't even think he's a libertarian. He just hates the federal government. Not necessarily state governments.
And, too, he isn't against war perse. I mean, he has said that America shouldn't attack Iran. But doesn't seem to care if Israel does.
And Paul appears to be a Christian zealot. I mean, he'd be a far right-wing President.
Anyway, he won't win the nomination. And, too, he's retiring.
So, look for RAND to take his place -- ha ha! :)

[Gouki]

yup Ron has started to set the freedom brush fires in the minds of young men and women nationwide leaving the gate open for Rand in 2016 IMO

[trish]

Freedom brush fires? Listen to yourself. You should get yourself deprogrammed as soon as possible.

[Gouki]

lol I did ;)

[Ben]

This is why government work is pretty simple. One should be a simple administrator. And public policy should reflect the popular will -- :)

Are Americans becoming less not more conservative? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0_jXSjiC1M)

[Ben]

Actor Russell Means endorses Ron Paul on some pretty profound reasons:

Russell Means Endorses Ron Paul - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuVa7_zz_Y0)

[hippifried]

Actor Russell Means endorses Ron Paul on some pretty profound reasons:
I know he was in Last of the Mohicans, but "actor"? Do you know who he is? He was one of the early militant leaders of the American Indian Movement, In the '70s. He was inside, with founder Dennis Banks, When they siezed the town of Wounded Knee, South Dakota in 1973, & held it against the FBI, US Marshall Service, State Police, National Guard, etc for 71 days. All charges against those 2 were dismissed by the way.

Means is a real smart guy, but his agenda is a bit different than most of the rest of the country, including Ron Paul.

[Ben]

And Thom Hartmann critiques Ron Paul.... Ron Paul would be classified as a right-wing libertarian. (As the term libertarian comes outta Europe and really means: of the left.) Paul, too, seems to be somewhat of a social conservative. And, too, how religious is he????? Anyone know?

Ron Paul surrogate admits on why Paul is staying in the race - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfW3DNH8N7Q&list=UUY8x1K2FMBw-jm-WCPbcHEg&index=10&feature=plcp)

[Gouki]

Ron is religious but he believes in freedom of religion for everyone aka he does not care if you believe in god, space aliens or nothing at all, he won't push his religious beliefs on anyone

[Ben]

Libertarian Caller Answers Our Challenge! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5d51J2nqEs&list=UU-3jIAlnQmbbVMV6gR7K8aQ&index=1&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Thought this was comical. A bit of humor in a long and bitter campaign:

'RON PAUL' - A Bad Lip Reading SoundBite - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvahywQKeFc)

[Ben]

Van Jones Walks Back Saying Libertarians 'hate... the brown folk, the gays, the lesbians'

Van Jones Walks Back Saying Libertarians 'hate... the brown folk, the gays, the lesbians' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Qz3-LkV-A&feature=plcp&context=C40f8865VDvjVQa1PpcFNyDbgyjPkTyTGL_XslAuVA 6jEu3hjPLq4=)

[Gouki]

Van Jones is a moron, and its funny how its only Ron and Mittens left on the GOP side but the controlled mainstream media fails to acknowledge Paul

[Ben]

Van Jones is a moron, and its funny how its only Ron and Mittens left on the GOP side but the controlled mainstream media fails to acknowledge Paul

Not a fan of Van Jones.
I'm curious as to how much longer Ron Paul will stick around for.
I think he still wants to get his message out there. (I was hoping Paul would capture the nomination. And, of course, debate Obama. Especially about issues regarding civil liberties. It would've been interesting. There won't be much of a debate between Obama and Romney. Because they're pretty identical. They don't differentiate that much on government policy. Plus they're both backed by the same institutions: Goldman or Government -- :) -- Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America etc., etc., etc. Oh, throw in Google and Microsoft -- ha ha ha!)
They're in this position because the super-rich and powerful, well, want them to be.
I mean, you can't get to these heights without serving the corporate elite and the corporate state. And what does ol' Paul think of this:

Ron Paul on Government and Corporate Power - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW00267-Uvo)

[Ben]

And on the other side of the political aisle: Noam Chomsky....

Noam Chomsky on Corporate Personhood: 2011 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no8zxGPyapU)

[Ben]

Noam Chomsky - The Corporation Excerpts - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtdD42XsLlE)

[Ben]

Libertarian Paradise complete w/Mad Cow Disease? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TDhi7QF7IE)

[Ben]

Is Libertarianism Dead? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29_FM3vtFrU&feature=plcp)

[robertlouis]

Ben, "Libertarian" is one of those political terms which is so broadly defined and probably misused and misunderstood that it is genuinely difficult to work out exactly what it means in fundamental terms and then to translate that meaning into practical political applications.

From this distance on the European side of the pond it tends to have idealistic associations as well as with the darker, no-government arsenal toting survivalists lol.

How would you describe it please? I'm curious to know.

And thanks in anticipation.

[Ben]

Ben, "Libertarian" is one of those political terms which is so broadly defined and probably misused and misunderstood that it is genuinely difficult to work out exactly what it means in fundamental terms and then to translate that meaning into practical political applications.

From this distance on the European side of the pond it tends to have idealistic associations as well as with the darker, no-government arsenal toting survivalists lol.

How would you describe it please? I'm curious to know.

And thanks in anticipation.

It depends, I guess. I mean, there's right-leaning libertarians like Ron Paul and left-leaning libertarians like Noam Chomsky.
So, with respect to Ron Paul, well, I mean, if you remove government, well, who'll build roads, highways, bridges and schools?
And a country that has a free market wouldn't enforce any child labor laws or minimum wage laws.
Anyway, Robert, the point of right-leaning libertarians is to achieve a free market paradise.
The financial sector approximated free market conditions under Clinton and Bush II -- and THEN we saw what happened in 2008.
But the thing I like about Paul is he said: you don't bail the banks out. What does baling out banks have to do with so-called free market capitalism? (But Ron Paul is pretty much against any involvement by the Federal government. How would that work? Well, take your best guess -- ha ha ha! Okay, what about taxes? Would they disappear? I mean, there are too many undecideds.)
And, too, the notion of freedom and property rights doesn't apply to women with respect to abortion. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. I think a woman should have the right to choose with respect to abortion. That's where I disagree sharply with Paul.
But, again, no one really knows what this libertarian paradise would look like. I mean, it'd be a paradise for the likes of Bill Gates. But it could be a horror show for working men and women.... Who knows.

[robertlouis]

It depends, I guess. I mean, there's right-leaning libertarians like Ron Paul and left-leaning libertarians like Noam Chomsky.
So, with respect to Ron Paul, well, I mean, if you remove government, well, who'll build roads, highways, bridges and schools?
And a country that has a free market wouldn't enforce any child labor laws or minimum wage laws.
Anyway, Robert, the point of right-leaning libertarians is to achieve a free market paradise.
The financial sector approximated free market conditions under Clinton and Bush II -- and THEN we saw what happened in 2008.
But the thing I like about Paul is he said: you don't bail the banks out. What does baling out banks have to do with so-called free market capitalism? (But Ron Paul is pretty much against any involvement by the Federal government. How would that work? Well, take your best guess -- ha ha ha! Okay, what about taxes? Would they disappear? I mean, there are too many undecideds.)
And, too, the notion of freedom and property rights doesn't apply to women with respect to abortion. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. I think a woman should have the right to choose with respect to abortion. That's where I disagree sharply with Paul.
But, again, no one really knows what this libertarian paradise would look like. I mean, it'd be a paradise for the likes of Bill Gates. But it could be a horror show for working men and women.... Who knows.

Thanks Ben, that accords pretty much with what I thought - some kind of post-apocalyptic world where the survival of the fittest is all that matters. And as you point out, any so-called libertarian programme which discriminates on the grounds of gender or any other such criterion doesn't deserve the name.

For the morons who insist that even rape victims should carry their babies to term, surely the logical conclusion should be the physical emasculation of all men, just in case.

[onmyknees]

It depends, I guess. I mean, there's right-leaning libertarians like Ron Paul and left-leaning libertarians like Noam Chomsky.
So, with respect to Ron Paul, well, I mean, if you remove government, well, who'll build roads, highways, bridges and schools?
And a country that has a free market wouldn't enforce any child labor laws or minimum wage laws.
Anyway, Robert, the point of right-leaning libertarians is to achieve a free market paradise.
The financial sector approximated free market conditions under Clinton and Bush II -- and THEN we saw what happened in 2008.
But the thing I like about Paul is he said: you don't bail the banks out. What does baling out banks have to do with so-called free market capitalism? (But Ron Paul is pretty much against any involvement by the Federal government. How would that work? Well, take your best guess -- ha ha ha! Okay, what about taxes? Would they disappear? I mean, there are too many undecideds.)
And, too, the notion of freedom and property rights doesn't apply to women with respect to abortion. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. I think a woman should have the right to choose with respect to abortion. That's where I disagree sharply with Paul.
But, again, no one really knows what this libertarian paradise would look like. I mean, it'd be a paradise for the likes of Bill Gates. But it could be a horror show for working men and women.... Who knows.


Ben.....I think you paint an unfair portrait of Ron Paul and his version of government . He's never suggested no government, and fully acknowledges the need for a effective, efficient, modest central government. Let's take the what you call the financial crisis of 2008. Folks like you conveniently omit a very vital part of that story in your attempt to say ......."see the free market doesn't work if left to it's own devices"
Ron Paul would probably answer that fallacy this way......

First of all, you have to acknowledge the primary cause of the 2007-2008 collapse was the sub-prime mortgage debacle. If you can't, or won't acknowledge that as the primary cause, then you simply are not informed and probably shouldn't be engaging in these discussions. The fact of the matter is that banks are the heaviest regulated industry in the country. A crisis of that magnitude does not occur overnight...it's decades in the making. It's seeds were planted by people like Andrew Coumo, Jamie Gereleck, and enforced by the justice department. This was not a case of banks gone wild. This was a case of government trying to implement social policy through banking regulation. I urge you to go back and listen to the speeches of Andrew Coumo when he was secretary of HUD. He fully acknowledges many of these loans could never be repaid....but to him and others, it was well worth the risk. The mechanisms for enforcement were in place through the SCC and banking regulators, so it was never a case of lack of enforcement. Wall Street and the big banks are not clean in this by any means, but they seized on a faulty federal policy and figured out a way to make money off of this house of cards. Go back and listen to the congressional hearings on Fanny and Freddie, and the FHA. Eight years prior to the collapse Congressman Chris Shays warned of the looming catastrophe, but the House over site committees would have none of it. It's all a matter of public record if you spend some time and research it. This was about allowing home ownership and having everyone participate in The American Dream, even those that couldn't afford it. Again...the mechanisms were in place to prevent this, or at least change course but were ignored. To his eternal disgrace, SCC chairman Chris Cox allowed Rome to be pillaged, but he was not alone by a long shot. The die was cast well before.

Ron Paul would argue that had the Banks not been forced by HUD and Congress to grant millions of shaky loans, to people who could never repay them, the banking collapse would have never occurred. He would tell you that Banks, not Fanny and Freddie , a quasi government entity and an orgy of political patronage should determine who is and who is not qualified to be granted a mortgage. If you really want to understand how we got here, you have to understand government's role. I urge you to read The NY Times author Gretchen Morgenstern's book. Paul would tell you that government had a large part in this crisis and as our governments often do, delay the healing by misdiagnosing the problem, or being averse to explaining the pain necessary to realize a recovery. .

True we don't know what Ron Paul's version of libertarianism would look like if enacted, and probably never will unfortunately. But we now what democratic socialism looks like first hand..............California, Greece, Spain, Portugal and it's not sustainable. I relish the fact that the US is not like Europe, or the UK, but as they wrestle with seemingly insurmountable financial issues, all created by government and social policy, we seem to be blind to the examples they've laid out for us and are careening out of control to become like them. It's madness. You all reach for the easy answers...the blame game, but the fact of the matter is 7 1/2 out of the 8 years of the Bush years found low unemployment, a robust stock market returing healthy dividens, and private enterprise prospering. Did we rack up too much debt with the wars and the added prescription drug programs for the elderly? Yes...but wait....that was a democratic Congress who voted for that....and aren't you all constantly telling us about compassion and the need for more social assistance programs? ? Are you telling me you would have voted against the program ??? LOL Yes....Bush should have paid for the wars...no question, but the debt he left behind as troublesome as it was..... has been doubled in 3 1/2 years, sorry folks...those are facts ....and if it's so easy for you all to blame Bush...why is it so difficult to blame Obama for any of this?

I never really hear liberals answer the question of how we're going to get out of this malaise other than more federal spending as Krugman chronically preaches. But what if.............what if Krugman and Obama are wrong and the pump is not primed.......and after putting us trillions more in the red, to where interest and principle on the debt consumes more of the budget than all the social programs combined...where are we then ? Krugman and Obama will still have their Nobel prizes, and prospering in academia peddling thier Keynesian theories, and social justice, and ignoring the lessions leading up to the 2008 crisis, and the rest of us will be mired in a generation of no growth, crippling taxation, stagnant wages, high unemployment and little prospects of better times. We'll resemble Northern Ireland in the 70's.

[broncofan]

As someone who worked in finance I have to say that the lessons leading up to the 2008 crisis are not too tough to learn. There simply was not enough regulation of loans that were made, packaged, and re-sold. Those who underwrote insurance for these loans such as AIG were not well-capitalized enough to sell the insurance. And those who purchased the insurance often did not have an insurable interest but were merely making bets on the likelihood of the loans not being paid off. This is a formula for moral hazard.

Anyhow, if anything I think the fault lies with those who have pushed for de-regulation of the banking industry. I don't see how Ron Paul solves the problem except in the sense that sinking the entire economy will mean that there are fewer projects to finance and fewer people who will try to purchase homes. I can't for the life of me understand how people who claim to care about matters of civic interest want to elect someone who would cut all programs, who thinks the civil rights act is an unconstitutional usurpation, and who wants to get rid of most if not all of our federal agencies.

I think Ron Paul is one of the craziest men to enter the mainstream of American politics in a long time.

[broncofan]

onmyknees,
I don't find your claim as to the origin of the sub-prime mortgage crisis convincing. Loans were not packaged and resold only because the government was encouraging banks to make loans to those with bad credit. Such loans were originated because banks could earn a commission by re-selling them without ever having to worry about whether they would be re-paid or not.

When you can securitize loans and re-sell them at a premium and when banks can hold such securities and claim to be well-capitalized, you are going to tend to have bank failures. It is no coincidence that the entire crisis came to a head at exactly the time when the housing industry was expanding and the collateral for these loans was most inflated. Had the homes been adequate collateral for the bad loans, you would not have so many bank failures because the banks would be able to hold these homes and re-sell them at only a slight loss. The major problem is that home prices rose precipitously because banks were not limited in the type and amount of the loans they could make and when many people could not afford their mortgages there was far too much housing inventory and not enough demand for houses to sustain the current price.

Looking at the federal government's policy of trying to get poorer people into homes as the cause of the financial crisis is like identifying coughing as the cause of cancer. Actually I wouldn't say that you've reversed cause and effect but such a policy cannot really be blamed for the decision of many large banks to extend enormous amounts of credit. I know dozens of people who were not creditworthy who got loans and the loans were not made pursuant to any sort of federal mandate. The loans were made because they could be sold by the loan originator for a commission with little to no risk of loss.

[Ben]

As someone who worked in finance I have to say that the lessons leading up to the 2008 crisis are not too tough to learn. There simply was not enough regulation of loans that were made, packaged, and re-sold. Those who underwrote insurance for these loans such as AIG were not well-capitalized enough to sell the insurance. And those who purchased the insurance often did not have an insurable interest but were merely making bets on the likelihood of the loans not being paid off. This is a formula for moral hazard.

Anyhow, if anything I think the fault lies with those who have pushed for de-regulation of the banking industry. I don't see how Ron Paul solves the problem except in the sense that sinking the entire economy will mean that there are fewer projects to finance and fewer people who will try to purchase homes. I can't for the life of me understand how people who claim to care about matters of civic interest want to elect someone who would cut all programs, who thinks the civil rights act is an unconstitutional usurpation, and who wants to get rid of most if not all of our federal agencies.

I think Ron Paul is one of the craziest men to enter the mainstream of American politics in a long time.

broncofan, you write: "I think Ron Paul is one of the craziest men to enter the mainstream of American politics in a long time."
Noam Chomsky poses the question: What makes them Ron Paul libertarians???? Well, as Chomsky says, the feeling that government is the enemy.
(But) in a meaningful and profound democratic society the government and the people are one, are identical.
But do people feel that? No, of course not.
People see government agents, as it were, as selfish and greedy and looking out for themselves.

Chomsky interview with Michael Dranove: On the Ron Paul Libertarians (6/6) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SaRnl0J_O0)

[Ben]

Meet America’s deranged philosopher-queen (http://johannhari.com/2012/05/11/meet-americas-deranged-philosopher-queen/):

http://johannhari.com/2012/05/11/meet-americas-deranged-philosopher-queen/

[Ben]

Ron Paul Suspends Campaign, Supporters Keep It Up - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eqYoht0VWY&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Ron Paul NOT Quitting! Just Changing Campaigning Strategy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6icXnWWi0w)

[Ben]

Ron Paul: Taking over GOP delegates - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHo6cD1dFY)

[Ben]

Ron Paul wins Iowa - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXMUCmU2evI)

[Ben]

Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu-RmE6VcpI)

[Gouki]

the convention in Tampa this year should be interesting to say the least, Ron Paul 2012 ;)

[Ben]

Ron Paul on Endorsing Mitt Romney: "No Way!" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--QgEmC3-jE&feature=plcp)

[Gouki]

yup, Ron being consistent, nothing new here, there is no way he will support Obomney

[broncofan]

yup, Ron being consistent, nothing new here, there is no way he will support Obomney
I don't know how consistent he is, and ideological consistency is good. However, often people use the word consistency to describe those whose opinions are not sensitive to the emergence of new facts.

I can say, regardless of his consistency, he would be more of a disaster as a president than any of the candidates running for the Republican nomination. He wants to abolish most government agencies I think, not provide government sponsored healthcare for anyone apparently as it is an infringement on the rights of those receiving it, and to cut off foreign aid to all countries. Only the last policy is sensible in the abstract but the execution would be tricky. He also wants to return the U.S to the gold standard, which would shrink the money supply so quickly and exacerbate the economic crisis so badly we might never recover. There are those here who know more about this than I, but is there any way that returning to the gold standard would not be a disaster?

[Ben]

I don't know how consistent he is, and ideological consistency is good. However, often people use the word consistency to describe those whose opinions are not sensitive to the emergence of new facts.

I can say, regardless of his consistency, he would be more of a disaster as a president than any of the candidates running for the Republican nomination. He wants to abolish most government agencies I think, not provide government sponsored healthcare for anyone apparently as it is an infringement on the rights of those receiving it, and to cut off foreign aid to all countries. Only the last policy is sensible in the abstract but the execution would be tricky. He also wants to return the U.S to the gold standard, which would shrink the money supply so quickly and exacerbate the economic crisis so badly we might never recover. There are those here who know more about this than I, but is there any way that returning to the gold standard would not be a disaster?

Ron Paul seems to be ideologically consistent. That's either good or bad depending on whether or not you agree with his ideology.
He'd dismantle a big chunk of government. You've gotta think: what's two steps behind government? Powerful corporations. Is that a good thing?
Ron Paul has never addressed: who will pay for schools, roads, bridges etc, etc. But he'd most likely say State governments. (Again, his beef is with the Federal government.)
Does he really believe in absolute capitalism? Meaning no government intervention whatsoever. What will that entail? I mean, these are profound questions that would have serious consequences.
Police are government workers. What would happen to them? And doesn't a public police force impede price and market forces? Again, questions that should be addressed. The same with the fire department.
Should the military essentially become private? And who would it serve?
Governments create markets. Governments regulate markets. Governments create corporations.
I mean, how far does Paul intend to go? Full-tilt into unfettered capitalism? Would we have a kind of Social Darwinism?
Would the country become mean-spirited and further divided?
These are serious questions. I mean, we'd have a big experiment, as it were, under a Paul presidency.

[Gouki]

I don't know how consistent he is, and ideological consistency is good. However, often people use the word consistency to describe those whose opinions are not sensitive to the emergence of new facts.

I can say, regardless of his consistency, he would be more of a disaster as a president than any of the candidates running for the Republican nomination. He wants to abolish most government agencies I think, not provide government sponsored healthcare for anyone apparently as it is an infringement on the rights of those receiving it, and to cut off foreign aid to all countries. Only the last policy is sensible in the abstract but the execution would be tricky. He also wants to return the U.S to the gold standard, which would shrink the money supply so quickly and exacerbate the economic crisis so badly we might never recover. There are those here who know more about this than I, but is there any way that returning to the gold standard would not be a disaster?

at least I know that Ron Paul as president would attempt to do what he preached on his campaign trail unlike all the other phonies who say one thing then as soon as they are elected do a 180 degree turn, he might get a bullet in his head or die in a plane crash heaven forbid for attempting to do so but at least I know he would attempt to serve the people and not himself, I do not believe he would abolish all government agencies but it would be a very slow process if he even had the chance to attempt such a feat, Ron would also try to free up ALL forms of medicine and allow ALL healers to heal (true free market) not this current medical monopoly (disease management not treatment) that we currently call US healthcare, the US is in trillions of debt which keeps climbing at a record pace yet the militarism and foreign aid does not stop, its not sustainable in the long term, I don't think the answer has to be returning to a gold standard and ending the fed over night, the US should just takeover the fed and the issuance of currency and kick the banksters out of their temples ;)

[Gouki]

I don't know how consistent he is, and ideological consistency is good. However, often people use the word consistency to describe those whose opinions are not sensitive to the emergence of new facts.

I can say, regardless of his consistency, he would be more of a disaster as a president than any of the candidates running for the Republican nomination. He wants to abolish most government agencies I think, not provide government sponsored healthcare for anyone apparently as it is an infringement on the rights of those receiving it, and to cut off foreign aid to all countries. Only the last policy is sensible in the abstract but the execution would be tricky. He also wants to return the U.S to the gold standard, which would shrink the money supply so quickly and exacerbate the economic crisis so badly we might never recover. There are those here who know more about this than I, but is there any way that returning to the gold standard would not be a disaster?


Ron Paul seems to be ideologically consistent. That's either good or bad depending on whether or not you agree with his ideology.
He'd dismantle a big chunk of government. You've gotta think: what's two steps behind government? Powerful corporations. Is that a good thing?
Ron Paul has never addressed: who will pay for schools, roads, bridges etc, etc. But he'd most likely say State governments. (Again, his beef is with the Federal government.)
Does he really believe in absolute capitalism? Meaning no government intervention whatsoever. What will that entail? I mean, these are profound questions that would have serious consequences.
Police are government workers. What would happen to them? And doesn't a public police force impede price and market forces? Again, questions that should be addressed. The same with the fire department.
Should the military essentially become private? And who would it serve?
Governments create markets. Governments regulate markets. Governments create corporations.
I mean, how far does Paul intend to go? Full-tilt into unfettered capitalism? Would we have a kind of Social Darwinism?
Would the country become mean-spirited and further divided?
These are serious questions. I mean, we'd have a big experiment, as it were, under a Paul presidency.

yes I agree you can't dismantle many government agencies overnight considering these entities make up over half the US GDP which is a problem in itself but this is what happens when the people let government grow and grow unchecked, here are some ideas, bring back a true free market for health and food freedom which is a market not controlled and regulated so strictly by the FDA who has a revolving corrupt lobby door with government, TARIFFS on all incoming goods to even out the playing field, enough of this NAFTA and GAFF free trade bullshit which has done nothing but helped to ship jobs out of the US and has turned the US into nothing more than a nation of consumerism, if the US ceased much of this continued nation building then the money from the defense budget would be saved and could be used to help the people of the US (if we had honest politicians, wishful thinking I know) the bottom line is the US military is really the Mega Banks and Corporations Military, and the private federal reserves should be taken over not necessarily ended, the US has not had true free market capitalism in a very long time, what we have now is akin to Corporate Fascism which is when mega corporations and big government protect each another for their benefit and leave the general populace out in the cold

[Ben]

Thom Vs. A Libertarian caller - What is Freedom? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eolOESiIbrU&feature=plcp)

[Prospero]

The caller there is not doing the libertarians any favours. A fool.

[Ben]

The caller there is not doing the libertarians any favours. A fool.

Ha ha ha! A lot of so-called Libertarians are young, white and male. (Even the females seem to be white and privileged, too. Or Upper middle class or even rich. So, why should they care about government? It's called rational self interest. Ya know, I got mine. I don't care about anyone else.
I certainly hope that isn't the case. But it appears to be that way. The idea of concern for others seems to be missing in this movement.
Well, I disagree with Paul on health care. Take a look...
He says that we should leave it up to the Church with respect to health care.... Ooookay....

Heckler interrupts Ron Paul hypothetical health care question - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BXTKrbGbZs)

And:

Sorry, Libertarians. Snacks, Soda Regulation in Schools Make Kids Healthier! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3n0WOc2RJ8&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Linguist George Lakoff on Rationality and Politics - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqFxHTh98Ww)

[hippifried]

It's called rational self interest. Ya know, I got mine. I don't care about anyone else.
I certainly hope that isn't the case. But it appears to be that way. The idea of concern for others seems to be missing in this movement.


Libertarianism comes in varying degrees. Blatant selfishness isn't really part of the philosophy. Don't confuse libertarianism with egoism as put forth by Ayn Rand & her cult followers. The libertarian philosophy promotes understanding the value of the collective shared responsibities, burdons, & rewards. It's not about "rational self interest". Unlike Ayn Rand, libertarians don't deny the existance of altruism. Libertarianism doesn't work without altruism, & the philosophy recognizes that. It's a liberal philosophy. Egoism isn't.

[Ben]

Can we exist in a libertarian state.... I'm on the left of the libertarian latitude or opinion, as it were.
As the caller points out: we've never had a libertarian state.... And, too, if we got rid of government, well, corporate power would completely take over. Is that a good thing? Well, democracy would cease to exist.
The freedom would be: I'm free to choose between Pepsi and Coca-Cola -- ha ha ha!
The term consumer came in circa 1982. Before that we were citizens. And before that we were human beings.
But in a corporatized society, well, one would merely be a consumer. I mean, your sole reason for being would be to consume.
It sounds like a wonderful magical place -- ha ha!
The result of endless consumption is the gradual and inevitable destruction of the planet. I mean, you can't have infinite growth on a finite planet. Perpetual motion is impossible.
I think there are 300 million middle-class people in China. And another 200 million middle-class in India.
When does that stop? Well, it won't. It can't. Because the system hinges on ever more growth. To sustain the system you have to keep growing and growing and growing. You can't stop it -- or even curb it.
So, when will there be, say, 600 million middle-class in China and 400 million middle-class in India? Because it'll happen.
Because the system demands more and more and more. People. Consumption. Growth rates.
Corporations, as Chomsky has pointed out, have an institutional imperative to destroy the planet. It's true.)
And, too, lastly, one has to and should make the crucial distinction between left-leaning libertarianism and right-leaning libertarianism. Left-leaning doesn't want absolute corporate dominance.

Libertarian Oblivious to "Who Built That" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc9lEjbYiuU&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Ron Paul: No Difference between Obama and Romney - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKr6R12OeiM)

[Ben]

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 11-26-12 ~ US Military Support of Israel Is Fueling The Gaza Conflict

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnYN8eMfhkE

[trish]

What is "rational self-interest?" Most people will say they are willing to sacrifice now, while they are alive, to make life better for their grandchildren and great grandchildren. The successful propagation of your genes through future generations is tautologically advantageous for your genes, but it would be difficult to detail an argument that it was rational for an individual to make sacrifices now in order to make life easier for future individuals who might share some copies of his genes. The point is that rational self-interest doesn't cover the bases. Rational self-interest alone cannot drive an economy that promises the stability and agility that is required for our future survival. Rational self-interest never gets beyond the rational motivations of the self. It is an insufficient grounding for a philosophy of economics and governance. Empathy, ethics, morality and sacrifice are not derivative of rational self-interest and yet they necessary components of living life successfully with others.

[Ben]

What is "rational self-interest?" Most people will say they are willing to sacrifice now, while they are alive, to make life better for their grandchildren and great grandchildren. The successful propagation of your genes through future generations is tautologically advantageous for your genes, but it would be difficult to detail an argument that it was rational for an individual to make sacrifices now in order to make life easier for future individuals who might share some copies of his genes. The point is that rational self-interest doesn't cover the bases. Rational self-interest alone cannot drive an economy that promises the stability and agility that is required for our future survival. Rational self-interest never gets beyond the rational motivations of the self. It is an insufficient grounding for a philosophy of economics and governance. Empathy, ethics, morality and sacrifice are not derivative of rational self-interest and yet they necessary components of living life successfully with others.

I agree with you Trish when you write: "Rational self-interest alone cannot drive an economy that promises the stability and agility that is required for our future survival."
Oil companies pursue their own interest. Regardless of the harm it may cause to future generations. Namely global warming.
So-called rational self interest could also be: I -- or we -- just don't care about future generations. Which, of course, is frightening.
ExxonMobil is concerned about the next quarterly profits. That's considered rational.
But what will global warming do to people who walk the planet in, say, 50 years or 100 years? Or 150 years? Or 200 years? I mean, at the dawn of the so-called Industrial Revolution many would've said: what impact will this have on future generations. Some would've said: Who cares; we'll be dead. But we're living with the consequences of that. The good consequences -- and the bad.
Our economic system is saying that: profits are more important than people. That's the scary nature of these so-called rational corporations and the entire economic system.

Stand Still for the Apocalypse:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/stand_still_for_the_apocalypse_20121126/

[trish]

I wonder even how one’s interests are to be judged rational. “Is it rational for individual X to have interest Y?” How does one decide questions of this sort? What is the rational procedure for deciding whether an it is rational for X to have interest Y? What factors are rationally relevant to making such a judgement? Do interests arise and develop within an human mind or are they rationally chosen? I wonder whether the whole concept of “rational self-interest” isn’t indicative of a self-contradictory misunderstanding of human psychology that was invented to bolster a reactionary economic ideology.

Given interests it is easy to see how reason can be applied to decide how best to optimally promote those interests. Suppose you have an interest Y. “I will act to promote interest Y,” can be used as a postulate (a starting point) in any chain of deductions you make to justify an action. For example from “I will act to promote Y,” might be used to in a chain of deductions that concludes with “I will perform action Z.” If the deductive chain is logically valid one might say that Z is the rational thing for you to do. But what axioms do we use to decide whether it was ever rational for you to adopt, develop, grow, happen upon or choose interest Y? Does rationality apply at this level?

X has a wife and a mistress. One might say X has two conflicting interests. One might say that if X has a wife, then he has no rational justification for having a mistress. Another might say it’s irrational for X to remain married to his wife if he wishes to maintain his interest in his mistress. Still, a more urbane observer who knows the family intimately might not see the conflict in these interests as very compelling, not significant enough to require X to sacrifice one interest for the other. There are no set rules to decide which interests are rational and which aren’t; i.e. the word “rational” has no application here. We have interests because human beings develop interests and pursue them. Should Mr.K sell his business and devote his life to writing? He loves both. He can afford it either way. He just has to decide which of his consuming interests should be allowed to oust the other. But he can’t decide that. He just has to wait and see which interest will eventually consume all his attention. Rational self-interest doesn’t apply.

Q is devoted to debauchery, he is a true hedonist. He works hard, saves up money and every year he takes a long vacation in one of the world’s sex resorts. Currently he’s a happy man. Surely Q’s interest in debauchery is irrational, right? It’s pursuit increases his exposure to life threatening diseases, it burns through his money etc. etc. Is it always irrational to risk exposure to disease? Of course one can think of situations where the risk is warranted. If the risk was taken in pursuit of an interest worthy of risk we would say the risk was warranted. We all agree that the risks taken by police and fireman on 9-11 was a noble and worthwhile risk to take. Debauchery not so much. But what if Q thinks the pleasures are worth the risk? Q has two interests, his health and his pleasures. Neither is rational nor irrational. Those words just don’t apply to interests. He simply has two interests that are in conflict. No one has a rational basis for deciding which he should pursue. No one. Not even Q. But Q, and no one else, experiences his interests. Only in Q will one interest win out over the other. Which one wins is not a matter rationality. We can say that his health is more important to his future pursuits and interests; but that’s not the same as his self-interest.
It seems to me that Rands philosophy and libertarianism in general is based on fallacious concept, namely, rational self-interest.

People have interests. They all arise from within the self. So the “self” in “self-interest” refers to the intension of the interest, not on who has the interest. So if X has an interest Y, how does he decide whether Y is a self-interest? How does X discern the intension of Y? Suppose Y is the welfare of his mistress. Well it’s not about X’s welfare. So maybe it’s not a self-interest. But it is about HIS mistress’s welfare, so maybe it is a self-interest.

Let’s try something easier. X has taken an interest in the plight of sick and poverty stricken child whom he never met. Responding to a charity ad, X sent money to help the ill child. The interest, call it C, is the health and welfare of the child. Is it a self-interest? It is certainly one of X’s interests. It sprung from within his breast (with a little help from the ad); but the intension of C is the child’s welfare. Most of us would say that for X, C is not a self-interest. So if it couldn’t possibly be a rational self-interest. Rand’s libertarianism would advise X not to pursue C. In fact Rand claims the it’s people pursuing non-self interests who muck things up. Objectivism claims the world would work better if we all just stuck to pursuing our own “rational” self-interests.

The first example about X’s interest in the welfare of his mistress muddies the waters a bit. It demonstrates that the notion of “self-interest” is fuzzy around the edges; i.e. not absolutely clearly defined. The second example, however, demonstrates that we can find unambiguous cases of non-self-interest. But the second example also provides a clear counter to the objectivist dictum that one should only pursue one’s rational self-interest.

Some Randians will argue that X is pursuing his rational self-interest when sending money to charity sponsoring the child. They will argue that X is free to determine his own interests and when he makes a free and rational choice those interests become his rational self-interests. If you have a genuine interest it is in your self interest to pursue it. If the first example muddied the waters a bit, this attempt to save objectivism makes them opaque even to Superman’s X-ray vision. It not only make “rational self-interest” a vacuous concept but it renders “self-interest” vacuous as well.

The whole pursuit of objectivism is simply ill-conceived. Rand was a writer of young person’s books (a bad one at that). She was not a philosopher, nor was she an economists. She was born and grew up in Russia 1905, suffered under the communist rule and emigrated to the U.S. in 1925. Her writings are understandably reactionary diatribes against “collectivism.” That doesn’t make them right, nor does it make selfishness a virtue.

[Stavros]

Trish, there is a large literature on 'rational choice' theory, but it might help to think historically about the growth of capitalism and the way in which the spread of it outside Europe and the USA collided with existing economic systems, and how, it seems, capitalism has triumphed -but at whose expense? I am thinking, for example, of the moral economy contasted with the market economy.

The market economy became the means whereby the Ottoman Empire in its Middle Eastern domains in the second half of the 19th century, and for example the British Empire in East Africa, attempted to integrate 'backward' areas that were not producing profits, into a centrally managed system that craved them.

The growth of agriculture in Palestine, and what today is Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon was built on existing markets, in fruit and vegetables, cotton and silk and so on, but collided with the moral economies which existed side by side with these markets, most of which were based on large cities and towns such as Jaffa (oranges); Beirut and Damascus (silk and cotton). Outside these markets in rural areas, people practised subsistence agriculture which in a good year meant they could sell their surplus in markets, but mostly it was a moral economy where decisions were made that were considered good for the community as a whole rather than decisions that were determined by what was good for markets. Thus land may be farmed in rotation, with one family's land lying fallow for a year to protect its soil, with that family being compensated for its loss of production by the others; just as the distribution of goods would be decided morally - on the basis of need- rather than in market terms =the ability to pay. The Ottomans, and subsequently the British and the French, hated this moral economy because by the standards of the market it was not considered productive, whereas markets were viewed as dynamic, and giving people an incentive to produce for themselves through their benefit from sales. However in a precarious environment where it might not rain enough to produce a good crop for three years in a row, is a market economy superior to a moral economy?

In Kenya, there is a powerful argument that an undercurrent in the Mau-Mau rebellion of the 1950s was precisely the dislocation of the moral economy that had existed among the Kikuyu, which suffered as their lands were taken over by White setllers practising agricultural capitalism based on the production of goods for markets (in tea, coffee etc). The crisis this engendered in terms of the inheritance of land -lost through colonial disposession-, and the distribution of its products in a roughly equal manner throughout the Kikuyu -lost through the creation of markets- could not be resolved in the context of colonial rule -indeed, it was because some Kikuyu abandoned the 'age old' practices to graft themselves on to the colonial system in order to benefit from it tha explains why Mau-Mau in essence was a war within the Kikuyu for the soul of the Kikuyu people. Capitalism, in this sense, is the destroyer of one world, and the creator of another.

[trish]

Thank you Stavros for your examples. The contrast between the “moral economy” of the rural regions outside Beirut and the “market economy” of the Ottomans is engaging.

My concern in the last post was theoretical and focused not so much on the whether objectivist economic principles are good or bad but whether they are conceptually coherent. One more brief attempt to clarify:

To choose rationally, one needs to assess the costs and benefits of various choices. But one man’s cost may be another man’s benefit. Costs and benefits are measured relative to one’s interests. Rational choice is possible only when one has a clear idea how each possible choice would benefit one’s interests and how each possible choice would impede one’s interests. Clearly then, rational choice is possible only if one’s interests are available before the rational analysis begins. Therefore, to choose one’s interests rationally it is required that one’s interests already be known! There is no such thing as rational self-interest. There are only interests.

[Stavros]

Thank you Stavros for your examples. The contrast between the “moral economy” of the rural regions outside Beirut and the “market economy” of the Ottomans is engaging.

My concern in the last post was theoretical and focused not so much on the whether objectivist economic principles are good or bad but whether they are conceptually coherent. One more brief attempt to clarify:

To choose rationally, one needs to assess the costs and benefits of various choices. But one man’s cost may be another man’s benefit. Costs and benefits are measured relative to one’s interests. Rational choice is possible only when one has a clear idea how each possible choice would benefit one’s interests and how each possible choice would impede one’s interests. Clearly then, rational choice is possible only if one’s interests are available before the rational analysis begins. Therefore, to choose one’s interests rationally it is required that one’s interests already be known! There is no such thing as rational self-interest. There are only interests.

First of all I should make it clear that I do not believe in a processional theory of history, that a moral economy pre-dates a capitalist economy. In those parts of the Middle East dependent primarily on rainfall as the water supply for agriculture, a moral economy can be a response to a crisis following a sequence of seasons with low or insufficient rainfall, but also political crises created by war or invasion. Collective action thus becomes a 'rational choice' but in this way exposes the broader question inherent in the assumption made by rational choice theory: why? Why would an individual subsume their interests in a collective decision-making process over which they may not have any influence or control?

Rational Choice theory became dependent on mathematical modelling and game theory to explain the myriad of choices that people make, but could never adequately explain social norms, except as describing them as social norms! Just as rational choice can become a circular argument by claiming all social or economic actions are rational.

For example, to most people maximising the benefit of one's skills is a rational choice -if you have a degree in medicine and have trained as a doctor, it makes sense to become one, rather than opt to drive a taxi; but even that can be a rational choice if, for example, an accident as an intern engendered a crisis of self-belief that made practising medicine so traumatic it became impossible. With therapy, it may be possible to practise medicine yet again. Similarly, it may seem irrational for a 19 year old to steal a car, given the sanctions imposed by society upon it as a criminal act. But if the 19 year old is not seeking an economic reward in money for the vehicle, but a social reward in the approval of his gang, then it is a rational act. The same goes for the Japanese kamikaze pilot or an Islamic suicide bomber -neither act has a direct financial reward for the man, both seek appproval from their most valued social group -Japanese patriots, and those Muslims who believe suicide bombings are 'martyrdom operations' that bring glory rather than shame on the family.

What rational choice theory stumbles over is precisely the apparently irrational acts of individuals that can only be explained by norms -why, after all, should a teacher join the teachers union if there are so many teachers in it one more won't make a difference, but still benefit from the wage increase negotiated by that union?

So the issue may be, as you suggest, that the problem lies with the emphasis on rationality as the driver of economic and social behaviour; that human beings have individual desires, but social needs; that we contain within ourselves contradictions that rationality can neither predict, nor explain.

This is a useful overvew of rational choice theory:
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/soc401rationalchoice.pdf

[trish]

I agree with your last post. It comes pretty close to expressing what I was trying to say. Nicely done.

I'm am somewhat familiar with Von Neumann's and Morgenstern's game theoretic approach to economic theory. They, I think, would've been the first to admit their analysis presupposes the players have a known and fixed set of quantifiable interests. Their theory tell the players how to play rationally so as to optimize those interests, it doesn't tell them how to choose their interests. That is why rational choice theory fails to adequately deal with the formation of interests that arise out of social norms, and personal fascinations.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[broncofan]

I'm sure there are many games where an individual acting rationally in his own self-interest ends up with a worse outcome because he failed to take into account the behavior of another player (or is the "rational" person a game theoretician?). A Nash equilibrium arises when each player is making the best decision he or she can make taking into account the decisions of all other players, thereby making it irrational to defect. Yet it is probably more common for rational decisions made on an individual basis to have unintended consequences, sometimes resulting in a position worse than status quo.

I think the explanation of social values shows that rational interest cannot be very easily approximated, but there also seems to be something inherent in the nature of competition. People will do things in competition that will inevitably destroy them in the long-run. Win the battle lose the war. Pyrrhic victory. We hear about this in war, but in economic competition, such as with oligopolies selling highly elastic goods, individual self-interest results in a premium good being converted into a commodity. Aggrandize market share and end up with a worthless market. Of course I suppose it depends how you define group, because society is composed of consumers too who could argue they would be harmed by collective action in that paradigm.

Why subvert your individual decision-making to the group? One reason is that people do not let you act in a vacuum. They are aware of what you are doing and will retaliate if they think you trammelled on their interests.

[broncofan]

Just as rational choice can become a circular argument by claiming all social or economic actions are rational.

This sort of gets back to fixing meanings for such terminology. But it is especially difficult with such words as rational or reasonable or self-interest. Can every action be considered a selfish action because by subverting self-interest you serve your self-interest? Is everything rational in the sense that some interest must have been valued favorably to all those competing? Is the determination of what's rational subjective and individualized or objective based on group norms? If the determination of what is rational is subjective, then every action must be rational, unless one made a decision when he was in a state atypical for him. But if he was, then it would be rational for him to make such a decision when in that state. Tremendous circularity.

But this puts the lie to all arguments about rational self-interest because they all impute differing degrees of omniscience to the actors. And it presumes some sort of fixed relationship between information and choice (input and output). Any decision is made within an extraordinarily complicated, fluid system.

[Ben]

Saving Economics from the Economists:

http://hbr.org/2012/12/saving-economics-from-the-economists/ar/1

[trish]

Is that like saving climatology from climatologists? Or biology from biologists? Or is it more like saving theology from theologians, or parapsychology from parapsychologists?

Economics is not the study of business management. Nor is it the study of entrepreneurship (whatever the fuck that is). Just as thermodynamics seeks to establish the emergent properties of complex, many-bodied physical systems, economics seeks to establish the emergent properties (if there are any) of complex, many-bodied economic systems. The emergent laws of thermodynamics cannot predict the behavior of a particular molecule, but only the interrelationships between statistical variables such as average kinetic energy (temperature). Similarly, economics cannot predict which stocks will rise, nor can it tell you how to manage your business. It cannot predict the behavior of single constituent elements of the system. It attempts to understand the system at the macroscopic level. Economics, like thermodynamics, or climatology should indeed be driven by empirical data, but at the appropriate scale. Just as the weather on a single day at a single place is irrelevant, to climatology, the details of a single business and what made it fail or succeed may or may not be relevant to economics. We should probably leave home economics to home makers and leave economics to economists.

[Ben]

Where Are the Female Libertarians? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNB6DC2w5o8)

[hippifried]

Where Are the Female Libertarians?

They're probably both drooling over some commie with a big bulge.

[Ben]

Ron Paul Bots:

Mob Of Ron Paul Bots Send Death Threats! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNtx3j_6eFY)

[Ben]

Ron Paul supports Snowden and Manning in Larry King interview - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odt5g9k_Rr0)

[Ben]

Ron Paul's interview with Glenn Greenwald starts at the 12:23 mark:

Ron Paul Channel FIRST EPISODE!! Interviews GLENN GREENWALD August 12, 2013 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohHkq75SPvs)

[broncofan]

Going back to the origin of this thread, I think I have an explanation for why Ron Paul has been able to maintain consistency in his views throughout his political career. He is an extremist and so it is always very easy for him to know which direction to pull on any policy decision.

He believes in nearly absolute free markets and so doesn't forget to say that he thinks regulatory agencies should be de-funded or abolished. He believes the U.S should be on the gold standard, that the fed should be abolished, and that social welfare programs should cease to exist. He believes in an almost absolute policy of non-interventionism, to the extent that this policy should be adhered to even in the face of genocide. He avoids testing this proposition by calling every humanitarian crisis a "false flag" operation and engaging in crank conspiracy talk when confronted with any complexity.

He thinks the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional but even it were not he has said he would oppose it for policy reasons, as it conflicts with his Libertarianism. His newsletters from the 90's ranted about how the Americans with Disabilities Act forced dentists to treat AIDS patients who are basically no better than murderers for seeking treatment. He has denied knowledge of a great deal of what was written in his publications, but this view attacking legislation that created extra-contractual rights for vulnerable people seems right up his alley.

Yes, he's consistent. He's also a batty extremist.

[Ben]

Going back to the origin of this thread, I think I have an explanation for why Ron Paul has been able to maintain consistency in his views throughout his political career. He is an extremist and so it is always very easy for him to know which direction to pull on any policy decision.

He believes in nearly absolute free markets and so doesn't forget to say that he thinks regulatory agencies should be de-funded or abolished. He believes the U.S should be on the gold standard, that the fed should be abolished, and that social welfare programs should cease to exist. He believes in an almost absolute policy of non-interventionism, to the extent that this policy should be adhered to even in the face of genocide. He avoids testing this proposition by calling every humanitarian crisis a "false flag" operation and engaging in crank conspiracy talk when confronted with any complexity.

He thinks the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional but even it were not he has said he would oppose it for policy reasons, as it conflicts with his Libertarianism. His newsletters from the 90's ranted about how the Americans with Disabilities Act forced dentists to treat AIDS patients who are basically no better than murderers for seeking treatment. He has denied knowledge of a great deal of what was written in his publications, but this view attacking legislation that created extra-contractual rights for vulnerable people seems right up his alley.

Yes, he's consistent. He's also a batty extremist.

I wouldn't say that he believes in absolute "free" markets. Remember absolute "free" markets mean absolutely no government intervention. He certainly supports the military. Which, of course, exists outside the market system. As he would -- and does -- consider it a public good. And, again, that exists outside the market. It's an externality. Or external to markets. And, too, he supports a public police force.
I have disagreements with Paul. But I think he's good on a lot of issues. I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian. I mean, I do support gay marriage etc., etc.

[broncofan]

Hi Ben,
I said nearly absolute free markets. You are right that believing in having a standing army is outside the market system, a public good, a positive externality that would otherwise not be paid for. This is for me one of his few reality based positions.


Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul)


Some of his other positions are not purely libertarian views but have their own little quirk. For instance his views on the first amendment favor the free exercise clause more than the establishment clause on religion. It means he doesn't believe the constitution says that there is even an implied separation of church and state. It allows free practice, but the establishment clause in his view only prevents the government from choosing a religion. The Supreme Court interprets it much more broadly than that.

His views on sodomy, gay marriage, and abortion are not exactly pure libertarian views as I'm sure you know in disagreeing with him there. They are sort of a mixture of state's rights advocacy, strict construction constitutionality, and pro-religion bias. Of course, if I went into it there's quite a bit wrong with Mr. Paul's understanding of the Constitution. He seems to disagree with over 200 years worth of interpretation of the document in favor of his own personal view.

But the biggest indictment of him are his positions linked above. Go through and take a look at them one by one. Here's my caution before doing so. Don't think too much about his justifications for having a position because it's very easy to listen to these rationalizations and pretend there's something deeply principled about them. For instance someone might say, "I'm for genocide, but you don't understand, it's only because I am generally in favor of anything that prevents over-population. I've supported every measure of that kind". Look more at what he supports.

He often supports things for many reasons. For instance, he may say he thinks the civil rights act is unconstitutional (it's not), but he also says he thinks it creates racial disharmony. To believe this last statement is to truly have your head up your ass. Look at what he says about sexual harassment in the workplace. That a female who complains about being subjected to it and does not leave her job is valuing her employment over her morals by not quitting. So again, he may quite quaintly claim that it is his libertarianism, in other words his view that employers should be able to do what they want. But his real reason boils down to something else: he blames the victim.

Other views of his are just plain stupid. That judges don't even have the right to instruct the jury on what the law is. The entire point of the instruction is to tell the jury that they must figure out what happened and then apply it to the law as the Judge explains it. But Paul thinks this somehow usurps the rights of the accused to a trial by jury....that the founders believed that jurors should just sit in a box and act based on whim and caprice. I don't know where he comes up with half this shit.

Some inconsistencies: he believes abortion should be left to the states, but then voted in favor of federal legislation banning "partial birth" abortion. This is why one should pay attention to what he does, because his explanations are a complete fraud. Also loved his lecture upon looking at the bill to consider acting in Darfur, that it was not in the United States' interests.

[broncofan]

More evidence that Ron Paul is homophobic. His position on gay marriage is about as muddled and inconsistent as it could be. At once, he says that he thinks marriage should not be a government function, and so it should be a matter of any two people engaging in a private association.

On the other hand, he believes that states should be able to ban gay marriage. I don't know how to reconcile these two views except to say that maybe in the absence of getting his way (that the government stays out of marriage), he prefers that this legislative power resides in the states rather than the federal government.

However, if he believes that it's ideal for both the state and federal government to stay out of it altogether, shouldn't he prefer that when states do inevitably regulate marriage that they choose the least restrictive definition possible? In other words, if he believes that in his best case scenario individuals decide for themselves, why in his second best scenario does he support a restrictive definition of the institution that excludes gays?

Then there's the issue of him saying he would have voted for DOMA. DOMA basically allowed the federal government to impose its own view of marriage on the states and to thereby disregard the state's definition of marriage. Very odd for such a staunch state's rights advocate to support this legislation except that the government's definition was the exclusive one.

As you can see from his chameleon like views on gay marriage, his constitutional justifications have a sort of heads I win tails you lose logic. And the man who has opposed dozens of pieces of legislation on the grounds that the federal government doesn't have the right to legislate in a particular area, says he would have supported legislation that overrules state definitions of marriage and imposes a uniform federal view for federal administrative purposes.

As for his other views on social issues. He also wants to pass laws that strip the Supreme Court of any judicial oversight when it comes to issues of abortion, marriage, and religion. What he doesn't understand is that this is one of the most important functions of the Supreme Court. The Court makes sure that both state and federal laws do not violate the federal constitution. And it was established very early on that the Court has the final say on matters of constitutionality. This is why banning abortion is unconstitutional. You cannot simply say that it's a matter that should be left to the states, because states are not allowed to violate the federal constitution any more than the federal government can.

He says he thinks the Court was also wrong in ruling that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and that making such laws should be the prerogative of the several states. Yes, yes Dr. Paul, but there's this whole constitution thing and the fact that men in robes decide on issues of constitutionality, not some half-baked wide-eyed demagogue who has never been a judge!!!! For him, the only thing that should matter is precedent...has the Court decided and if so, that's the law!

[broncofan]

Ben,
I realize I've posted up a couple of long-winded objections to Ron Paul's politics. I'm not daring you to respond if you don't want to because I have nothing against people who happen to like some of Paul's ideas, even if I clearly have something against him.

But can I just ask you what it is you find unique about him, or that you like? If I had to guess, I would say it is the non-interventionism, which as a long-term policy would have been a lot better for us and the rest of the world than what we've engaged in. If that's it then fair play.

But there are some things about the rest of the package that I think are appalling. And even if you're a non-interventionist, it doesn't mean that you don't think we might be able to act on occasion in one-sided cases of genocide. It's unfortunate that Ron Paul does seem to be one of the few politicians who wants to pare down our foreign aid and reduce the size of our military, both of which I also think are good ideas.

[surf4490]

Name me 1 politician who you like all their policies ?

[broncofan]

Name me 1 politician who you like all their policies ?
I don't really see the point of that exercise. There's not a politician whose list of policies I dislike in their entirety either.

However, I can't think of anyone in this country whose policies I dislike more than Ron Paul. Maybe Paul Ryan.

[Ben]

I don't really see the point of that exercise. There's not a politician whose list of policies I dislike in their entirety either.

However, I can't think of anyone in this country whose policies I dislike more than Ron Paul. Maybe Paul Ryan.

Ron Paul supports decreasing the military budget. Isn't that a good thing? Ron Paul supports ending the fruitless war on drugs. Isn't that a good thing?
I've disagreements with both Pauls. But they have some sensible policies. I mean, I don't support a push toward a full free market system. (I mean, a full free market means: no child labor laws, no minimum wage laws.)
And how do we address, say, spillover effects or externalities? The big one is pollution. How would a so-called "free" market address pollution? Or the bigger one: global warming?
In the absence of government, well, who puts constraints on corporate power?
But Ron Paul is right when he points out: we've a merger of corporate and state power. And that's the problem.
But we do have some say/control over government. As they've a flaw: they are potentially democratic.

[broncofan]

Ben, look no further than my last post on the previous page. I sort of anticipated some of your agreements with Ron Paul. As I said, it is possible for a politician to want to reduce the military budget and end the war on drugs but who does not want to get rid of Medicare, the Americans With Disabilities Act, The Civil Rights Act, who thinks the world should respond in cases of genocide, who supports same-sex marriage rights, who doesn't support the now ruled unconstitutional DOMA, who does not want to strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court on abortion, who doesn't want to privatize all federal lands so that environmental law can be waged by private lawsuits, who doesn't have such bizarre notions of how jury trials should operate, and who doesn't think sexual harassment is something women can avoid by quitting their jobs.

Just my take. Not difficult to have one or two sensible policies out of several dozen.

[broncofan]

I mean, I don't support a push toward a full free market system. (I mean, a full free market means: no child labor laws, no minimum wage laws.)
And how do we address, say, spillover effects or externalities? .
Believe it or not, Ron Paul does have an answer to the externality question, though it's not a solution. He says if we privatize all federal lands, then there will not be a spillover problem because every individual will be able to vindicate their rights in court by suing the polluter. Of course, this leads to a tremendous amount of wasted expenditure in the form of court costs, there are enormous transaction costs associated with getting thousands of parties together to sue corporations, there are increases in insurance costs for businesses because of the uncertainty in magnitude of their liabilities. You are also going to have tremendous number of trial cases where the nature of property rights are litigated; what does it mean to own land adjacent to a stream, what quality of air are you entitled to? What he has suggested is not really an answer but in his view it's a good way to prevent the government from legislating.

[trish]

The principle difficulty with privatizing Federal lands is there won't be any Federal lands! No commons! No national parks! Nothing but private roads, private waterways and no resources belonging to the people! This is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people not an anarchy of the corporations.

[thombergeron]

Believe it or not, Ron Paul does have an answer to the externality question, though it's not a solution. He says if we privatize all federal lands, then there will not be a spillover problem because every individual will be able to vindicate their rights in court by suing the polluter. Of course, this leads to a tremendous amount of wasted expenditure in the form of court costs, there are enormous transaction costs associated with getting thousands of parties together to sue corporations, there are increases in insurance costs for businesses because of the uncertainty in magnitude of their liabilities. You are also going to have tremendous number of trial cases where the nature of property rights are litigated; what does it mean to own land adjacent to a stream, what quality of air are you entitled to? What he has suggested is not really an answer but in his view it's a good way to prevent the government from legislating.

The problem here is that Ron Paul talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to civil litigation. When he ran for president in 2012, he claimed to oppose tort reform on federalist grounds. But the Private Option Health Care Act that he authored in 2010 replaced malpractice litigation with a tax credit for adverse outcome insurance, which may be one of the worst health-policy ideas ever conceived. He also voted against a measure that would allow negligence lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He voted in favor of liability protection for manufacturers of certain gasoline additives. And he voted for a bill aimed at addressing court shopping that would move national class-action lawsuits out of local state courts to federal courts. He’s stated numerous times that he thinks the American economy is overburdened by civil litigation, and that it should be more difficult for a claimant to bring a lawsuit.


Ron Paul supports decreasing the military budget. Isn't that a good thing? Ron Paul supports ending the fruitless war on drugs. Isn't that a good thing?

I just plain don’t get the progressive fascination with the Pauls. Ron Paul is certainly not the only politician in this country who supports reducing DoD’s budget and ending the war on drugs, and on virtually every other issue, he’s a hard-right demagogue. Plus, how anti-war/anti-security state is he, really? He voted for the AUMF, one of the most intrusive pieces of national security policy this country has ever seen. And being against the drug war is not exactly a fringe position anymore. John McCain mentioned marijuana legalization yesterday. So why does Ron Paul have more credibility among the left than Barbara Lee or Alan Grayson?

[broncofan]

The problem here is that Ron Paul talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to civil litigation. When he ran for president in 2012, he claimed to oppose tort reform on federalist grounds. But the Private Option Health Care Act that he authored in 2010 replaced malpractice litigation with a tax credit for adverse outcome insurance, which may be one of the worst health-policy ideas ever conceived. He also voted against a measure that would allow negligence lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He voted in favor of liability protection for manufacturers of certain gasoline additives. And he voted for a bill aimed at addressing court shopping that would move national class-action lawsuits out of local state courts to federal courts. He’s stated numerous times that he thinks the American economy is overburdened by civil litigation, and that it should be more difficult for a claimant to bring a lawsuit.

First, good point on the AUMF.

I didn't know any of this above. This is the sort of heads he wins tails you lose stance he takes. He clearly wants to abolish the regulatory state. In its place he indicates he wants people to be able to vindicate their rights as individuals in court. Then he supports measures to limit liability. This isn't a free market paradigm but a rigged system.

I don't want to write anything else that's too long-winded but his federalism/state's rights arguments are grounded in an idiosyncratic view of the Constitution. I suppose he's entitled to think about constitutionality in his own terms when considering legislation, but he's gotten to the point where he doesn't even want to let the highest court in the land have its say. He wants to strip them of jurisdiction on issues where he disagrees with their rulings. Where is the principle in that?

Just a small historical note: If I remember correctly, one of the things established by Marbury v. Madison is that the executive cannot just ignore the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings in favor of his own view. Ron Paul is not exactly doing that by considering the constitutionality of laws BEFORE voting for them, but the only branch of government that can overturn that law once it's passed is the judiciary. So his insistence that settled law needs to be overturned with jurisdiction stripping measures is really just an end-run around the separation of powers.

Note: I am not a Constitutional scholar and I am not sure if what I am saying is completely correct, but that's my take on the matter.

[Ben]

Ron Paul on NBC: U.S. Moving Toward "Soft Fascism" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvl_hQ80ZNQ)

Howard Zinn on Fascism in America - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHNwhDPY7iE)

[Dino Velvet]

Do We Live in a Police State Ron Paul - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pidNFsuTnYQ)

Ron Paul U S foreign Policy AIPAC Israel greatest obstacle no respect for the constitution 360p - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkCzfxPcCak)

[Ben]

How Real Conservatives Get Crushed By Money In Politics:

How Real Conservatives Get Crushed By Money In Politics - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNIF7x5LSug)