Why do I kind of like Ron Paul

[Stephen Colbert]

I obviously know that my economics are the exact opposite of Ron Paul's, but he's so critical of a lot of U.S. foreign policy and just flat out mauls most conservatives in 1 on 1 debate, that I kind of like what he is doing for the American Right. I mean look at him, he moans about CIA imperialism, and preaches non-interventionism and even makes comments about how de facto racism is a terrible problem that needs to be irradicated.

Obviously, I am not an anarcho-capitalist or more bluntly, an American libertarian/vulgar-libertarian. But why do I like Ron Paul so much?

I scream @ end the fed. I applaud at "look at what happened when we instated the Shah of Iran in 1953".
:confused:

[¿Que?]

There's a documentary out there that shows Ron Paul making all sorts of racist comments. Someone posted it on revleft, so it's worth doing a search for it. Also, Ron Paul is against abortion.

Also, Ron Paul is not so much anti-imperialist as he is an isolationist, I think. He also wants to get rid of such things as public education and sort of subscribes to the "privatize everything" view.

Overall, I'd say he's pretty reactionary.

[Weezer]

Ron Paul isn't the worst reactionary, but calling him the "Best Reactionary" is like calling Rommel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel) "Best Nazi."

[Stephen Colbert]

There's a documentary out there that shows Ron Paul making all sorts of racist comments. Someone posted it on revleft, so it's worth doing a search for it. Also, Ron Paul is against abortion.

Also, Ron Paul is not so much anti-imperialist as he is an isolationist, I think. He also wants to get rid of such things as public education and sort of subscribes to the "privatize everything" view.

Overall, I'd say he's pretty reactionary.


Yea, there was a video I watched and it was him versus Maddow and she totally pwned him on that business should NOT have an "inherent right" to deny service to anyone they want, although classical economists(like Paul in this example) say that that can't possibly ever happened because its economically inefficient. Guess what, economics doesn't apply to certain scenarios where people's ideological preferences trump the amount of money in their coffers. Happens all the time....

Thanks for the comment comrade.

p.s. can i call you comrade? :D

[jake williams]

...to deny service to anyone they want, although classical economists(like Paul in this example) say that that can't possibly ever happened because its economically inefficient. Guess what, economics doesn't apply to certain scenarios where people's ideological preferences trump the amount of money in their coffers.
I don't think that's really the issue. I don't think that services are systematically denied to racialized communities for reasons of incidental "personal preference" on the part of shopkeepers, but because there are fundamental class interests involved on the part of the ruling class in generating and/or maintaining racism. Where the benefits to the class (which are coextensive with benefits to profit) of racism exceed those lost due to denying services to a certain market, thus reducing effective demand for your service, the ruling class, which ultimately owns the shops which allow or deny services to certain people, will do it. It's a classical economic calculation, just not one which classical economists ever make, because they systematically deny the class dynamics of society (except when they absolutely have to do otherwise).

[Stephen Colbert]

nice insight. thanks

[Kotze]

Ron Paul might not be a racist today, but he did publish newsletters in the past that had occasionally articles with disparaging comments about blacks. That was more than ten years ago and nowadays Ron Paul claims that the texts in question were not written by him. But if he was fine with publishing them that excuse is a bit weak. I agree that isolationist conservatives are better than conservatives who jokingly sing BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN (John McCain did that). The American Conservative is a conservative magazine (duh) with an anti-war view. Still, for people on the left it should be easy to find better friends than that.
Yea, there was a video I watched and it was him versus Maddow and she totally pwned himThat was an interview with Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul.

[ed miliband]

1. If you like Ron Paul because of his foreign policy, you may as well say you like the BNP or appropriate, American far-right groups. Swap 'British' for 'American' and you basically have Ron Paul:



British foreign policy must be driven by one guiding principle alone – to serve British interests above all else. This iron principle will be strictly enforced by a British National Party government.
In reality, this means that Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interests — and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics.
Britain has no right to dictate the internal politics or social configuration of any other nation. We would also expect all other nations to grant this same right to Britain.


2. Ron Paul's condemnation of racism is so, so weak. "Me? Racist...? Oh no, I can't be: racism is collectivist and I'm a libertarian, not a collectivist...".

[Jimmie Higgins]

People are attracted to him because of the shittiness and bankruptcy of the two main parties and the status quo they have been feeding us. But that does not mean his is our ally.

Regardless of weather Paul himself is a racist or not, his political beliefs actually re-enforce racism in the US. His son Rand (as in Ayn Rand) Paul (creepy!) said that the civil rights act of 1964 goes against property rights - this is the same line made by the anti-communist, racist, segregationist 1964 Presidential candidate Goldwater:


In 1961, Goldwater told an audience of Atlanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta) Republicans that "we're not going to get the negro vote as a block in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are".[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#cite_note-11) In 1964, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that emphasized "states' rights."[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#cite_note-12) Goldwater's 1964 campaign was a magnet for conservatives. Goldwater broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#cite_note-13). His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#cite_note-14)Rand and Ron Paul's politics are reactionary politics from 40 years ago dressed up to look appealing to people dissatisfied by the status-quo.

[thatwhichisnt]

I met Ron Paul before, and consider him to be an anti-State ally. Lets get rid of the biggest problem impending our road to progress, the State, then worry about economics after.

[Nolan]

I met Ron Paul before, and consider him to be an anti-State ally. Lets get rid of the biggest problem impending our road to progress, the State, then worry about economics after.

Do you really believe this double load of horseshit you just typed?

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

I met Ron Paul before, and consider him to be an anti-State ally. Lets get rid of the biggest problem impending our road to progress, the State, then worry about economics after.

You do know we wants to repeal all legislation that regulates business right? Things like working hours, child labor, and minimum wage.

You'd basically just be living under corporate rule, as you'd become a subsistence wage slave.

Bosses harassing you and making you work a 16 hour day? Well you better take it since you have no alternative other than starvation.

Trying to build a Union? Good luck since under Ron's World companies can fire for any reason.

Fuck Ron Paul, along with all the other reactionaries.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I met Ron Paul before, and consider him to be an anti-State ally. Lets get rid of the biggest problem impending our road to progress, the State, then worry about economics after.He is not an ally to the working class, he advocates policies which would hurt working class people and so he is no friend of mine.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The only part of Ron Paul I agree with(That I know of) is when he's talking about U.S. imperialism being bad. When he's talking about that I can watch it but then when he starts talking about economics I wonder why he's been in Congress for so long.

[Adil3tr]

Ron Paul is a peasant populist. He wants to turn back to the farmer days. Thats nice, but hes more like a idealist luddite than a socialist. He represents a better right, but its missing the point.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Ron Paul is a peasant populist. He wants to turn back to the farmer days. Thats nice, but hes more like a idealist luddite than a socialist. He represents a better right, but its missing the point.

How does he represent a "better" right? He wants to repeal all legislation that protects the working class today.

He's not even a peasant populace, most of the support he gets is from the petit-bourgeois or the bourgeois.

I guess Ron Paul is a better "right", kind of like how the EDL is better than the Nazis.

How can any revolutionary support anything he says? Even his foreign policy is based on what he thinks will strengthen the state.

[DaComm]

Ron Paul sounds like a mouse.

[Adi Shankara]

If you support or admire Ron Paul's positions did you know that Ron Paul:


Wants An end to social services and welfare for the poor: "Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family." --Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, February 13, 2003

opposses the Civil Rights Act: http://www.frumforum.com/ron-paul-civil-rights-act-reduced-individual-liberty

Wants to build The Border Fence/wants no citizenship for children of Immigrants: "Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation...This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive." --Ron Paul, October 3, 2006
Believes health-care should be provided on a private charity basis; doesn't support federally guaranteed health-care: "You don’t have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can’t expect the managed care system that we have today [to work, because it] promotes and rewards the corporations. It’s the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that’s why the prices are high (or maybe it's because they can get away with charging us, since we don't have a right to doctors? just a thought). It’s only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices." --Ron Paul, May 5, 2004

(And the most important, most heinous thing about the man)

Ron Paul is a staunch and open ally of Free Markets and Capitalism:

"Capitalism didn't give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it's not proactive. Congress' job is to get out of the way."

"If we were to choose freedom and capitalism, we would restore our dollar to a commodity or a gold standard. Federal spending would be reduced, income taxes would be lowered, and no taxes would be levied upon savings, dividends, and capital gains. Regulations would be reduced, special-interest subsidies would be stopped, and no protectionist measures would be permitted. Our foreign policy would change, and we would bring our troops home. (Ron Paul probably thinks Capitalism can cure cancer, bring world peace about, and end racism--despite the last 250 years of free market capitalism in place)" --Ron Paul, Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 9, 2002 http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul42.html

* * *

So long story short, if you support Ron Paul, then you are definitely not a communist, but a reactionary; He's definitely NOT a friend of leftism; in fact, I'd argue he's one of our worst enemies.

[Zapatas Guns]

I met Ron Paul before, and consider him to be an anti-State ally. Lets get rid of the biggest problem impending our road to progress, the State, then worry about economics after.

Economics reinforces the state and the state reinforces economics. Why should I work to get rid of the state only to have a large conglomerate of corporations and wealthy individuals rule me instead? Private tyranny is the worst kind of tyranny. Capitalism must fall just like the state.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Anarcho-Capitalism is not the answer... and it is what extreme libertarians like Ron Paul want... if we let them get full, unrestricted capitalism, then we get to see a repeat of the late 1800's and the early 1900's in which sweat shops are located everywhere; children are being injured, crippled and mangled in machinery; the quality of food and life overall plummet to the point in which disease spreads through the working class; oh and lets not forget that any opposition movement will be met be a group of corporate mercenaries with guns who will then begin shooting at the crowds even if there are women and children present...

Yeah... full privatization of everything and the doing away with restriction is only a good thing to those who own the major corporations of the nation... hell, it's not even good for the small businesses because they'll just be threatened and crushed by the larger ones like they were then...

[ed miliband]

"Anarcho"-capitalism and right-libertarianism make Thomas More's Utopia look perfectly possible; as ideologies they make utopian socialism blush at it's realism.

[Adi Shankara]

"Anarcho"-capitalism and right-libertarianism make Thoma More's Utopia look perfectly possible; as ideologies they make utopian socialism blush at it's realism.

http://i45.tinypic.com/23lmi2o.jpg

Seriously. Anarcho-Capitalism is what you have in Somalia and Afghanistan. I don't know why ANYONE would want some shit like that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Somalia is actually a pretty interesting portrait of the limits of the nation-state in establishing order amoungst a people. The UN has been consistently trying to establish a state there since the early 90's, and has utterly failed to this day.

[Adi Shankara]

Somalia is actually a pretty interesting portrait of the limits of the nation-state in establishing order amoungst a people. The UN has been consistently trying to establish a state there since the early 90's, and has utterly failed to this day.

But Somalia is truly an anarchist-capitalist state; there is no legal code that is followed; no unified authority to enforce laws; there is no public education, roads, etc.

everything is privatized, including the militia(s), roads, prisons, etc.

everything can be legally and freely traded, from gold to slaves and drugs.

if you ask me, Somalia is a paragon of capitalist virtue :rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Actually Somalia is governed; it just doesn't have a state that's recognized by the international community. It has a de-facto state to the north called Somaliland that has been trying to gain international recognition for some time. In the south it's a little more dicey, but there is governance and rules set by the Islamic courts and warlords. That's why there really is nothing remotely "anarcho" about the supposed anarcho-capitalism in Somalia. :rolleyes:

But, to be sure, Somalia was a living hell under Siyaad, so much so that a study conducted after the Civil War found that several areas regarding Somali quality of life actually improved in the absence of his government.

[Adi Shankara]

Actually Somalia is governed; it just doesn't have a state that's recognized by the international community. It has a de-facto state to the north called Somaliland that has been trying to gain international recognition for some time. In the south it's a little more dicey, but there is governance and rules set by the Islamic courts and warlords. That's why there really is nothing remotely "anarcho" about the supposed anarcho-capitalism in Somalia. :rolleyes:

But, to be sure, Somalia was a living hell under Siyaad, so much so that a study conducted after the Civil War found that several areas regarding Somali quality of life actually improved in the absence of his government.

You can't deny though, with Somalia's complete lack of social services, everything being privatized, and completely "free" trade (in such commodities as 10 year old prostitutes, weapons, etc.) it is a completely capitalist state.

[Nolan]

But, to be sure, Somalia was a living hell under Siyaad, so much so that a study conducted after the Civil War found that several areas regarding Somali quality of life actually improved in the absence of his government.

This study was done by the World Bank, iirc. It doesn't make any sense. how could they collect this data from a warzone, with no functional central government to take data? Not to mention that the data doesn't add up itself. How could life be better under the rule of Islamist warlords? Something tells me they studied a demographic unrepresentative of the entire population.