Constant Conservative Ron Paul...

[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]

[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....



And:

[Ben]

[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.

[Ben]

[Ben]

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

[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.