Ron Paul on the drug war?

[Crusade]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufekh_SwZd0

Your thoughts?

After looking at some of his videos, it made me wonder if shrinking the size of the state, even in a capitalist society, would be better conditions for a socialist revolution than voting for bigger government liberals, and attempting to seize control of office. I'd assume the bigger government is, the less control the people have, and the bigger resistance we'd face in overthrowing capitalism. Although, right-libertarianism would give even more power to the private sector, but surely this is better than a police/swat/cia/fbi/military backed state, no? Then again I'm anarchist-leaning so I'm not exactly impartial.

[scarletghoul]

Well yeah, obviously a weaker state would be easier to overthrow.

[Nolan]

Don't take that pill. The "smaller" government these corporatarians advocate is not "smaller" or weaker at all.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

I would only support Ron Paul to the extent he polarizes and divides the RW. The upper echelons of the GOP/American power establishment watch him warily... I think he actually believes what he preaches.

[#FF0000]

Don't take that pill. The "smaller" government these corporatarians advocate is not "smaller" or weaker at all.

Exactly this. Think about it, for a second. Ronald Reagan was one of these "small government" shills too. When people say "small government", they mean making government smaller by gutting social programs that cut the working class some slack.

However, if one means cutting the defense budget and loosening up drug laws and that kind of thing, then I'm all for it.

[Tablo]

All these members of the right talk about small government while supporting the patriot act(Big Brother anyone?) and supporting defense budgets of world conquest proportions. The only things they want the government out of are social benefits and business regulation.

[Cal Engime]

After looking at some of his videos, it made me wonder if shrinking the size of the state, even in a capitalist society, would be better conditions for a socialist revolution than voting for bigger government liberals, and attempting to seize control of office. I'd assume the bigger government is, the less control the people have, and the bigger resistance we'd face in overthrowing capitalism. Although, right-libertarianism would give even more power to the private sector, but surely this is better than a police/swat/cia/fbi/military backed state, no? Then again I'm anarchist-leaning so I'm not exactly impartial.In Das Kapital, Marx takes the position (contrary to his earlier position in The Communist Manifesto) that any policy which attempts to moderate or reform capitalism is actually a reactionary policy because it prevents capitalism from reaching its most advanced state, and therefore frustrates the revolution. I don't know if you accept Marx's view of history or not.
Exactly this. Think about it, for a second. Ronald Reagan was one of these "small government" shills too. When people say "small government", they mean making government smaller by gutting social programs that cut the working class some slack.

However, if one means cutting the defense budget and loosening up drug laws and that kind of thing, then I'm all for it.I don't get the Reagan worship myself—for all his talk, he didn't cut spending, and Iran-Contra was worse than Watergate—but Paul is definitely the latter kind of small government advocate, which I guess is why he called Reagan a "failure" in 1988. As far as I know, he is the only member of Congress who's consistently stuck to the principles conservatives claim to hold in the past 50 years. He's never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, voted against the invasion of Iraq, voted against the PATRIOT Act, been vocal about the effects of monetary inflation and the drug war on the working class and racial minorities, and garnered the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against almost every bill that comes up. In the 70s, he sponsored term limit legislation, opposed draft reinstatement, and proposed to decrease Congressional salaries by the rate of inflation. He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional pension program, and he returns a portion of his Congressional office budget to the Treasury every year.

[Tablo]

I don't get the Reagan worship myself—for all his talk, he didn't cut spending, and Iran-Contra was worse than Watergate—but Paul is definitely the latter kind of small government advocate, which I guess is why he called Reagan a "failure" in 1988. As far as I know, he is the only member of Congress who's consistently stuck to the principles conservatives claim to hold in the past 50 years. He's never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, voted against the invasion of Iraq, voted against the PATRIOT Act, been vocal about the effects of monetary inflation and the drug war on the working class and racial minorities, and garnered the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against almost every bill that comes up. In the 70s, he sponsored term limit legislation, opposed draft reinstatement, and proposed to decrease Congressional salaries by the rate of inflation. He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional pension program, and he returns a portion of his Congressional office budget to the Treasury every year.
Despite his awful politics I like the fact that Ron Paul is consistent in his perspective and it seems he thinks his ideological perspective is in the best interest of the American people. He is still a conservatard. :p

[#FF0000]

In Das Kapital, Marx takes the position (contrary to his earlier position in The Communist Manifesto) that any policy which attempts to moderate or reform capitalism is actually a reactionary policy because it prevents capitalism from reaching its most advanced state, and therefore frustrates the revolution. I don't know if you accept Marx's view of history or not.

Where?


I don't get the Reagan worship myself—for all his talk, he didn't cut spending, and Iran-Contra was worse than Watergate—but Paul is definitely the latter kind of small government advocate, which I guess is why he called Reagan a "failure" in 1988. As far as I know, he is the only member of Congress who's consistently stuck to the principles conservatives claim to hold in the past 50 years. He's never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, voted against the invasion of Iraq, voted against the PATRIOT Act, been vocal about the effects of monetary inflation and the drug war on the working class and racial minorities, and garnered the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against almost every bill that comes up. In the 70s, he sponsored term limit legislation, opposed draft reinstatement, and proposed to decrease Congressional salaries by the rate of inflation. He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional pension program, and he returns a portion of his Congressional office budget to the Treasury every year.

And how did Ron Paul vote when it came to social spending? No, right?

He might be for cutting the defense budget and he might even be pretty hard on cops too, but what would he do to social security? Welfare? Unemployment?

[Dimentio]

All these members of the right talk about small government while supporting the patriot act(Big Brother anyone?) and supporting defense budgets of world conquest proportions. The only things they want the government out of are social benefits and business regulation.

Not Ron Paul. That is why they always get hick-ups in the GOP when he's appearing and doing his stuff. Reagan was a product, much like any other politician. Ron Paul is principled, and is therefore viewed as a crank.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In Das Kapital, Marx takes the position (contrary to his earlier position in The Communist Manifesto) that any policy which attempts to moderate or reform capitalism is actually a reactionary policy because it prevents capitalism from reaching its most advanced state, and therefore frustrates the revolution. I don't know if you accept Marx's view of history or not.

This is a correct analysis (if it's indeed true...I'd be lying if I were to say that I'm entirely familiar with Kapital.) I'm not sure that I'd call hard-fought gains that improved working class standards of living "reactionary", necessarily, but I think that it's self-evident that if everyone's "comfortable in the cage" that any sort of real, fundamental change will be harder to bring about.


The "smaller" government these corporatarians advocate is not "smaller" or weaker at all.

This is also a correct analysis. And it has nothing to do with the fact that most "small government" conservatives are total fakes (Reagan for example exploded the Federal budget). Even orthodox small government figures like Ron Paul put property rights and respect for property at the center of their ideology. The implications of this are obvious for our side.

On a side note, even though I hate the man's politics, I find it kind of hard to dislike Ron Paul himself. He seems like someone's kindly old grandpa who might not be all there upstairs, but who feeds you cookies and tells you stories about the war when you go to visit him.

[Cal Engime]

Where?Chapter 32. Marx makes it clear that the only road to the collapse of capitalism is the progressive evolution of capitalism itself, which will lead us to a communist society "with the inexorability of a law of nature." As Marx quotes himself in a footnote, those who "try to fight against the bourgeoisie...try to roll back the wheel of history." This is the reasoning that led the German Social Democrats to oppose Bismarck's social security legislation and plan to nationalise the tobacco industry. In the U.S., the Communist Party opposed the New Deal until 1935, regarding it as a reactionary plot extremely detrimental to the true interests of the proletariat.
And how did Ron Paul vote when it came to social spending? No, right?

He might be for cutting the defense budget and he might even be pretty hard on cops too, but what would he do to social security? Welfare? Unemployment?In the long run, I'm sure Ron Paul would get rid of Social Security and any other social program not explicitly authorised in the Constitution, though not all at once, since people have planned their retirement assuming they could depend on it. I'm just saying that he is a principled advocate of small government, not a corporate pawn like some Republicans (and Democrats), no names mentioned. Paul often says that he thinks issues like this should be handled at the state level, but given his admiration of economists like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard (whom he knew personally), I wouldn't be surprised if he opposed the very existence of the state.

[#FF0000]

Chapter 32. Marx makes it clear that the only road to the collapse of capitalism is the progressive evolution of capitalism itself, which will lead us to a communist society "with the inexorability of a law of nature." As Marx quotes himself in a footnote, those who "try to fight against the bourgeoisie...try to roll back the wheel of history." This is the reasoning that led the German Social Democrats to oppose Bismarck's social security legislation and plan to nationalise the tobacco industry. In the U.S., the Communist Party opposed the New Deal until 1935, regarding it as a reactionary plot extremely detrimental to the true interests of the proletariat.

I have never seen somebody so blatantly misquote something in my life. The first quote you took says this:


The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature its own negation. It is the negation of negation.

Uh. Let's move on to the second quote.


Of all the classes that stand face-to-face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes perish and disappear in the face of Modern Industry, the proletariat is its special and essential product.... The lower middle-classes, the small manufacturers, the shopkeepers, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle-class... they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history

The first one points out contradictions in capitalism. The second one states that the proletariat are the only class capable of being revolutionary. You tore those quotes from their context with such wild abandon that I'm kind of stunned and I have to wonder if you're serious.

[Sasha]

can i just say that anyone looks good next to stephen baldwin...

[Dimentio]

Is this for real?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41

[x371322]

It's funny how the righties seem to adore Ron Paul and the libertarians right now because they preach "smaller government." But no one advocates a smaller state than we do.
In fact, I was talking to my father a while back, who is a Fox news fan, (we argue about politics all the time). But anyway I basically described a communist society, without saying the word communism. And he thought it sounded great! Haha. I told him that all businesses should be controlled democratically by the workers instead of one rich asshole. He said it all sounded good to him, and agreed that that's the way things should be. I then told him, "Dad, that's communism". :lol: He just looked at me funny and didn't say anything else. :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

When libertarians and republican right wingers talk about "small government" or "less government" they never mean small or cut government spending. They always mean transferring government spending and political influence from social spending and the workers to corporate spending on the big businesses.

[RED DAVE]

I would only support Ron Paul to the extent he polarizes and divides the RW. The upper echelons of the GOP/American power establishment watch him warily... I think he actually believes what he preaches.We should support Ron Paul – like a noose supports a hanging man.

RED DAVE

[RadioRaheem84]

I think he actually believes what he preaches.

Chomsky said to watch for the right wing man who believes what he preaches. Paul strikes me as a Klan man underneath the whole 'civil-libertarian' facade.

[Cal Engime]

Chomsky said to watch for the right wing man who believes what he preaches. Paul strikes me as a Klan man underneath the whole 'civil-libertarian' facade.This has come up; some racist remarks appeared years ago in Paul's ghostwritten newsletter, which he says he rarely read.5CoQWAXuUyIXnPnAJeVuvw

[SouthernBelle82]

All these members of the right talk about small government while supporting the patriot act(Big Brother anyone?) and supporting defense budgets of world conquest proportions. The only things they want the government out of are social benefits and business regulation.

Yep. Ron Paul is a hypocrite and a phony with that. He's one of the biggest pork spenders in Congress for his district yet goes on about that with health insurance and all this other stuff. He also never once tried to impeach George Bush. Only two people did: Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich and neither time he joined them. He didn't try to do anything about the patriot act or anything libertarians claim to be against. I've always heard the saying that libertarians are just right wingers who just want to smoke dope which is so true. They don't care about ending the drug war the right reason's. Everyone should check out LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. These are people you should listen to. Not the boob Ron Paul.

[Skooma Addict]

I've always heard the saying that libertarians are just right wingers who just want to smoke dope which is so true. They don't care about ending the drug war the right reason's.


Darn! We've been found out! The jig's up!

[#FF0000]

Words about ron paul

That's cool but I'm kind of wondering what you have to say about the quotes you tore out of context earlier. I'm still kind of stunned by how blatant that was.

[MMIKEYJ]

Yay for Ron Paul!!!!

You gotta love him.;)