Constant Conservative Ron Paul...

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.

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!‬‏

All Of Ron Paul's Iowa Fox GOP Debate Question & Answers - YouTube

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

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.

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...

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Hartmann: Ron Paul...He Who Shall Not Be Named - YouTube

Ron Paul 'Scared' - Bill O'Reilly On Fox News - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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....

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.

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

Thom Hartmann and Will Bunch - The Economic Decline Started With Reagan - YouTube

This is where I agree w/ Ron Paul:

Ron Paul Booed at CNN - Tea Party Debate - YouTube

This is where I disagree:

Tea Party Crowd Cheers Letting Uninsured Die - YouTube

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....

Ron Paul: Militarism vs National Defense at Tea Party Debate 9/12/2011 (booed) - YouTube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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'.

Noam Chomsky Agrees With Ron Paul on His 9/11 Theories - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by runningdownthatdream

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.

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.

Quote:

---

history also suggests that unregulated free enterprise can lead to the very monopolies that strangulate competition

---

Not 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.

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

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

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

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.amaz...mostlytrue.gif Share this story:




http://static.politifact.com.s3.amaz...mpa_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 Country."

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 Baseline."

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.

Ron Paul's Health Insurance Alternative - YouTube

Ron Paul's Campaign Manager Would Have Been Insured...Thanks to Obamacare - YouTube

Liberals & Libertarians Actually Different; Ron Paul Confusion - YouTube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

Joe Rogan & Jamie Kilstein Talk Politics - YouTube

Ron Paul Attacks Institutionalized Assassination of US Citizens - YouTube

Ron Paul: Don't Assassinate US Citizens - Even McVeigh Had His Day in Court - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BluegrassCat

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.