Printable View
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
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
Thought this was comical. A bit of humor in a long and bitter campaign:
'RON PAUL' - A Bad Lip Reading SoundBite - YouTube
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gouki
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
And on the other side of the political aisle: Noam Chomsky....
Noam Chomsky on Corporate Personhood: 2011 - YouTube
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
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.
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.
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.
broncofan, you write: "I think Ron Paul is one of the craziest men to enter the mainstream of American politics in a long time."Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
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
the convention in Tampa this year should be interesting to say the least, Ron Paul 2012 ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gouki
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
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.
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 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
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 coldQuote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
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
And:
Sorry, Libertarians. Snacks, Soda Regulation in Schools Make Kids Healthier! - YouTube
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.Quote:
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.
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
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
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.