Ron Paul

[skizzy]

I hope this is in the right section.

I recently noticed that a lot of the Occupy Wall Street people seem to support this guy. I looked over his policies and see nothing that would help the working class or even the middle class.

He seems to want the "free market" to control almost all aspects of the economy and no regulation on very much of anything. Allowing corporations to just run rampant.

Maybe im confused on his ideology, but I dont get why anyone would support this guy.

So, I just thought I would get your opinions about him and what hes for.

Thanks

[Sugarnotch]

He appeals to potsmoking suburbanites; to people who buy into "free market = free people." It's kind of interesting, though, that people of vastly different ideologies are uniting in solidarity against the same enemies.

[Tablo]

The only people that support him are white college kids and confused republicans(they are all over my campus).

I think he is a racist asshole and his cult is annoying. I do, however, like seeing him talk about foreign policy at the Republican debates.

[Ocean Seal]

I hope this is in the right section.

I recently noticed that a lot of the Occupy Wall Street people seem to support this guy. I looked over his policies and see nothing that would help the working class or even the middle class.

He seems to want the "free market" to control almost all aspects of the economy and no regulation on very much of anything. Allowing corporations to just run rampant.

Maybe im confused on his ideology, but I dont get why anyone would support this guy.

So, I just thought I would get your opinions about him and what hes for.

Thanks
Most of the occupy wall st. protesters don't support this guy. Most of those that do are deluded into thinking that regulations give the ruling class an upper hand in capitalism and that capitalism and the state are somehow two separate entities. Most reasonable people don't support Paul, really only ideologues (living the the US almost exclusively) and conspiracy theorists support the guy.

[tfb]

Most of these people (the working class and middle class ones) probably don't realize that Ron Paul wouldn't help the working class and/or middle class. It's exactly as surprising as any member of the working class and/or middle class not being some kind of leftist.

[Sugarnotch]

I think he is a racist asshole and his cult is annoying. I do, however, like seeing him talk about foreign policy at the Republican debates.


I saw one wherein Paul was bringing up the radical notion that maybe -- just maybe -- Middle Eastern countries don't hate us because we let women drive, but because of our vicious economic and militaristic state terrorism against those countries (and various other diplomatic bullshit). Rick Snatorum just looked at Ron Paul with disgust. You would have thought Ron Paul was up jacking off shirtless on the podium or something. :laugh:

[skizzy]

Most of the occupy wall st. protesters don't support this guy. Most of those that do are deluded into thinking that regulations give the ruling class an upper hand in capitalism and that capitalism and the state are somehow two separate entities. Most reasonable people don't support Paul, really only ideologues (living the the US almost exclusively) and conspiracy theorists support the guy.

Yeah, he came off as a "tin foil hat" kinda guy. I have a few Paul supporters at a local hookah bar that my friends run, and they are always spewing out the same free market, no federal government, no regulation ideas. I really had no idea that anyone even took this guy seriously.

I though he has support at OWS because they are always spamming picture of people there with ron paul shirts on, i havent been to a occupy event, so i wasnt sure.

[GPDP]

Amidst a sea of anti-capitalist signs, I actually saw a sign in support of Ron Paul at my local Occupy event. In motherfucking South Texas, in a rally organized by solid (if a bit hippie) leftists. I couldn't believe it.

His cult needs to die off ASAP. They're fucking annoying IMO.

[Ocean Seal]

Yeah, he came off as a "tin foil hat" kinda guy. I have a few Paul supporters at a local hookah bar that my friends run, and they are always spewing out the same free market, no federal government, no regulation ideas. I really had no idea that anyone even took this guy seriously.

I though he has support at OWS because they are always spamming picture of people there with ron paul shirts on, i havent been to a occupy event, so i wasnt sure.
Yes, but they are a minority there. A loud minority, but a minority nonetheless.


Amidst a sea of anti-capitalist signs, I actually saw a sign in support of Ron Paul at my local Occupy event. In motherfucking South Texas, in a rally organized by solid (if a bit hippie) leftists. I couldn't believe it.

His cult needs to die off ASAP. They're fucking annoying IMO.
Yes they are. Amidst a sea of anti-Wall St. signs in my event I found an END THE FED tent.

[Belleraphone]

I'm surprised the media gives him as much attention as they do. His attacks on US foreign policy are very impressive. I think he was also one of the first people to call attention to the federal reserve, so I respect him for that. I think he genuinely believes what he talks about and respects personal liberty, he voted against the patriot act and other authoritarian measures by the Bush administration.

However, I don't like his free market fantasies and his cutting of social programs. In this sense he is a reactionary and is eroding away the progress of the New Deal and Great Society. I'd still like him to win the Republican nomination though.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ron Paul couldn't make it as a doctor and decided to free-load on the government dole as a politician, all the while extolling everyone else who does exactly as he does. Has he given back his government pay? Does he provide his own insurance? Will he accept his social security (you bet your ass he will)?

Forgive my hyperbolic political rhetoric, but right wing libertarianism is not only a contradiction in terms, it is usually a contradiction in action as well.

Ron Paul (will still collect a government paycheck in) 2012! :rolleyes:

[Red Rabbit]

I enjoy his foreign policies, but my respect for him ends with that and is followed by a sea of hatred.

[Mnemosyne]

Wow- some education really needs to happen before more people make an ass out of themselves. Couldn't 'hack it' as a doctor... he ran his own private practice for many, many years. In fact he was known in the community for regularly lowering his fees, refusing to accept medicare and medicaid payments and even giving care free of charge!

Having been at Occupy Wall St., yes there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters- and I'd much rather see this than people chanting for Obama or (insert-ignorant-right-winger-here).

To whoever just said that a free market would let the corporations run rampant... please educate yourself on the history of both the free market as an economic system and the corporation. You will see that the corporation was created as a government sponsored entity and only exists because of the government today. Any 'regulation' that is created is done through those very same corporations and so is not regulation but competition elimination. It is not a coincidence that almost every industry in the nation is an oligopoly.

I find it funny how many people demonize the free market on here and those very same folks champion anarchism... the political system which has ALWAYS had a free market!
State supported capitalism is the enemy.

Ron Paul is not my hero, nor do I agree with everything he says. However- based on his record, he shows more honesty and integrity than any politician I've seen on the 'main stage' as a choice for president in 2012. (like the fact that he HAS voted against every single congressional pay raise, he HAS refused a congressional pension AND social security, he HAS consistently returned around a 1/3 of his committee's budget each year towards paying off the national debt and best of all- has NEVER voted to send US troops to another nation)

I have no doubt that if he were to be elected- he would absolutely work (even if in vain) to make drastic changes to our government. Odds are best that he wouldn't succeed but at least it would mark a time of awakening when people have finally chosen something different than the same old 70+ years of bullshit.

To those who say he is racist- there is no evidence of this except that which was created by the media and is completely contradictory to his stance as a libertarian... which means he does not look at people in groups but rather as individuals.

I'm shocked that someone who is regularly blackballed by BOTH sides of the media (another oligopoly by the way), receives the greatest support by any candidate from the US military (and he is entirely anti-war and occupation), receives NO money from Goldman Sach's, Monsanto, JP Morgan or any of the others who equally financed Obama and McCain... doesn't have more support from you people? Instead you regurgitate ignorant statements about his supporters that sound like they came straight out of Rachael Maddow's mouth... Shesh it takes 5 seconds to at least check out the wikipedia page on the guy before you run your mouth.

I thought this was the 'Revolutionary Left' and not just the 'Status Quo Left' guys.....?

I think Ron Paul is an obvious choice for ANYONE who wants something better than what we've got: A corporatist economy in a fascist state.

[The Jay]

Ron Paul is not a leftist, sorry to burst your bubble. The free market is certainly not leftist in any sense. What people here support is the abolition of money. Do you like Ayn Rand by any chance?

[Susurrus]

To be honest, I think the accusations against Ron Paul for racism are rather unfounded. Now RAND Paul, that's another story...

[Nox]

Ron Paul supporters confuse me...

> Capitalism makes their lives hell
> They want more Capitalism

Am I the one that doesn't see the logic in this?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Wow- some education really needs to happen before more people make an ass out of themselves. Couldn't 'hack it' as a doctor... he ran his own private practice for many, many years. In fact he was known in the community for regularly lowering his fees, refusing to accept medicare and medicaid payments and even giving care free of charge!

Having been at Occupy Wall St., yes there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters- and I'd much rather see this than people chanting for Obama or (insert-ignorant-right-winger-here).

To whoever just said that a free market would let the corporations run rampant... please educate yourself on the history of both the free market as an economic system and the corporation. You will see that the corporation was created as a government sponsored entity and only exists because of the government today. Any 'regulation' that is created is done through those very same corporations and so is not regulation but competition elimination. It is not a coincidence that almost every industry in the nation is an oligopoly.

I find it funny how many people demonize the free market on here and those very same folks champion anarchism... the political system which has ALWAYS had a free market!
State supported capitalism is the enemy.

Ron Paul is not my hero, nor do I agree with everything he says. However- based on his record, he shows more honesty and integrity than any politician I've seen on the 'main stage' as a choice for president in 2012. (like the fact that he HAS voted against every single congressional pay raise, he HAS refused a congressional pension AND social security, he HAS consistently returned around a 1/3 of his committee's budget each year towards paying off the national debt and best of all- has NEVER voted to send US troops to another nation)

I have no doubt that if he were to be elected- he would absolutely work (even if in vain) to make drastic changes to our government. Odds are best that he wouldn't succeed but at least it would mark a time of awakening when people have finally chosen something different than the same old 70+ years of bullshit.

To those who say he is racist- there is no evidence of this except that which was created by the media and is completely contradictory to his stance as a libertarian... which means he does not look at people in groups but rather as individuals.

I'm shocked that someone who is regularly blackballed by BOTH sides of the media (another oligopoly by the way), receives the greatest support by any candidate from the US military (and he is entirely anti-war and occupation), receives NO money from Goldman Sach's, Monsanto, JP Morgan or any of the others who equally financed Obama and McCain... doesn't have more support from you people? Instead you regurgitate ignorant statements about his supporters that sound like they came straight out of Rachael Maddow's mouth... Shesh it takes 5 seconds to at least check out the wikipedia page on the guy before you run your mouth.

I thought this was the 'Revolutionary Left' and not just the 'Status Quo Left' guys.....?

I think Ron Paul is an obvious choice for ANYONE who wants something better than what we've got: A corporatist economy in a fascist state.
You're fucking kidding me right? You are surprised the revolutionary left is not supportive of a believer and supporter of free markets? The guys answer to almost everything is "let the free market figure it out". And we're supposed to support that?

And people keep saying "he's the most honest politician" as if that is supposed to sway me over to his side. He's honest, he doesn't give a damn about working people's struggles, unrepentantly loves capitalism, wants to get rid of almost all regulations, all programs that help working families, the minimum wage, etc. In other words he wants to fuck us all over but hey, he's honest about it!

Ron Paul 2012!

Where do I donate for the guy that honestly tells us he's going to fuck us all!

[Mnemosyne]

LiquidState, Did I somewhere state that he was lefist? Or that the free market was leftist?
HOWEVER- if you really want to go there... you should know that liberalism in the classical sense was in fact libertarianism and was very much supportive of the free market.
On the topic of Ayn, I've read her books of course but would not describe myself as a 'fan'... and neither would Ron Paul so I'm not sure I see your point...?

Susurrus- I agree, but as far as what Rand Paul has done/said/etc., I cannot say.

Nox- please explain what you mean by capitalism and 'more' capitalism. There is a world of difference between state sponsored corporations and a free market.

The CLOSEST example to a free market in modern US is the black market- which as the drug trade has shown is incredibly resistant and able to maintain excellent consistency in it's control of inflation/deflation. The price of chocolate has changed more than the price of marijuana in the past 10 years. But, of course, the black market requires a criminal element which the free market would not have to allow.

A free market is in fact the only economic system in all of history to have survived even when states have not because it can go underground... being *free* and all.

Revolutionary Tool-
Your tool side is showing. Please explain to me how programs and minimum wage (which if it had actually been controlled by inflation, as opposed to federal mandates, would be closer to $15/hour) help people? Making someone dependent upon the State is a success how?

Again, you are using the argument of he is an enemy of working people.... no he is the enemy of federally mandated wage labor- which is the REAL enemy of the working people. Can you think of other ways to make a living rather than slaving for a paycheck just so you can pay taxes? I can...

[Susurrus]

To whoever just said that a free market would let the corporations run rampant... please educate yourself on the history of both the free market as an economic system and the corporation. You will see that the corporation was created as a government sponsored entity and only exists because of the government today. Any 'regulation' that is created is done through those very same corporations and so is not regulation but competition elimination. It is not a coincidence that almost every industry in the nation is an oligopoly.


a. So mafias and cartels are sponsored by the government?
b. you seriously think corporations wouldn't just cut out the middle man if given the chance?

[postanarchism]

Most people who support Ron Paul would be disgusted if they truly understood his political stances. But, he symbolizes in their consciousness autonomy from the state and resistance to corporate welfare. My only advice is to engage these individuals, find their stance, and demonstrate how Ron Paul's view directly and indirectly contradict their desire for autonomy. These people aren't lunatics or dunces, don't treat them like they are.

[NewLeft]

Wow- some education really needs to happen before more people make an ass out of themselves. Couldn't 'hack it' as a doctor... he ran his own private practice for many, many years. In fact he was known in the community for regularly lowering his fees, refusing to accept medicare and medicaid payments and even giving care free of charge!

Having been at Occupy Wall St., yes there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters- and I'd much rather see this than people chanting for Obama or (insert-ignorant-right-winger-here).

To whoever just said that a free market would let the corporations run rampant... please educate yourself on the history of both the free market as an economic system and the corporation. You will see that the corporation was created as a government sponsored entity and only exists because of the government today. Any 'regulation' that is created is done through those very same corporations and so is not regulation but competition elimination. It is not a coincidence that almost every industry in the nation is an oligopoly.

I find it funny how many people demonize the free market on here and those very same folks champion anarchism... the political system which has ALWAYS had a free market!
State supported capitalism is the enemy.

Ron Paul is not my hero, nor do I agree with everything he says. However- based on his record, he shows more honesty and integrity than any politician I've seen on the 'main stage' as a choice for president in 2012. (like the fact that he HAS voted against every single congressional pay raise, he HAS refused a congressional pension AND social security, he HAS consistently returned around a 1/3 of his committee's budget each year towards paying off the national debt and best of all- has NEVER voted to send US troops to another nation)

I have no doubt that if he were to be elected- he would absolutely work (even if in vain) to make drastic changes to our government. Odds are best that he wouldn't succeed but at least it would mark a time of awakening when people have finally chosen something different than the same old 70+ years of bullshit.

To those who say he is racist- there is no evidence of this except that which was created by the media and is completely contradictory to his stance as a libertarian... which means he does not look at people in groups but rather as individuals.

I'm shocked that someone who is regularly blackballed by BOTH sides of the media (another oligopoly by the way), receives the greatest support by any candidate from the US military (and he is entirely anti-war and occupation), receives NO money from Goldman Sach's, Monsanto, JP Morgan or any of the others who equally financed Obama and McCain... doesn't have more support from you people? Instead you regurgitate ignorant statements about his supporters that sound like they came straight out of Rachael Maddow's mouth... Shesh it takes 5 seconds to at least check out the wikipedia page on the guy before you run your mouth.

I thought this was the 'Revolutionary Left' and not just the 'Status Quo Left' guys.....?

I think Ron Paul is an obvious choice for ANYONE who wants something better than what we've got: A corporatist economy in a fascist state.

Free market =/= capitalism.

[Mnemosyne]

a) In many ways yes, they absolutely are!!! The Prohibition is precisely what gave the mafia a leg to stand on the US.

b) Let me restate: what you define as a corporation is an entity that was created and defined by the government. Without the laws that protect them (allowing them to file as individuals, allowing asset separation, etc., etc.) a 'corporation' would not exist. It is absolutely accepted in economics that sustained monopolies are IMPOSSIBLE in a free market. The only way you can have a monopoly is if you are the ONLY supplier of the product, or, if you continually offer the best quality with the best price/service/etc. None of which is permanently sustainable.


New Left- capitalism as a term comes from the concept of a free market. But you are correct that it today, is not exclusively defined as such. Corporatism, state sponsored, central bank controlled, etc., etc., are all forms of capitalism.

[Susurrus]

a) In many ways yes, they absolutely are!!! The Prohibition is precisely what gave the mafia a leg to stand on the US.

b) Let me restate: what you define as a corporation is an entity that was created and defined by the government. Without the laws that protect them (allowing them to file as individuals, allowing asset separation, etc., etc.) a 'corporation' would not exist. It is absolutely accepted in economics that sustained monopolies are IMPOSSIBLE in a free market. The only way you can have a monopoly is if you are the ONLY supplier of the product, or, if you continually offer the best quality with the best price/service/etc. None of which is permanently sustainable.



You forget that the government isn't the only way to enforce things.

[The Jay]

LiquidState, Did I somewhere state that he was lefist? Or that the free market was leftist?
HOWEVER- if you really want to go there... you should know that liberalism in the classical sense was in fact libertarianism and was very much supportive of the free market.
On the topic of Ayn, I've read her books of course but would not describe myself as a 'fan'... and neither would Ron Paul so I'm not sure I see your point...?

The CLOSEST example to a free market in modern US is the black market- which as the drug trade has shown is incredibly resistant and able to maintain excellent consistency in it's control of inflation/deflation. The price of chocolate has changed more than the price of marijuana in the past 10 years. But, of course, the black market requires a criminal element which the free market would not have to allow.

A free market is in fact the only economic system in all of history to have survived even when states have not because it can go underground... being *free* and all.



You implied that he was by questioning whether we were revolutionary or for the status quo, and being that the site has left in it's name what else was I to think. You're not going to convince many by giving the history of liberalism since liberalism isn't very popular around here. I'll state the obvious now: I am against a capitalist economy, be it free or mixed.

[skizzy]

Somalia is a pure free market, and a paradise. /s

Seriously. Everything you have put up is the same stuff iv seen spammed by people who follow him.

But seriously, I dont get the who no minimum wage thing. The ONLY reason you would want to get rid of this is to pay someone less. And why would you want to pay someone less? More profit. Put it anyway you want, thats what it comes down to.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Revolutionary Tool-
Your tool side is showing.Lol hella funny brosky.


Please explain to me how programs and minimum wage (which if it had actually been controlled by inflation, as opposed to federal mandates, would be closer to $15/hour) help people?Well without a minimum wage I'm pretty sure McDonalds would be paying me something like $1 an hour instead of $8. Yeah, having a minimum wage helps people, and I agree it should be raised. Do I really need to explain how having access to SS after you retire is better than not having an income at all, or that unemployment checks keep people from starving when they're unemployed, same thing with food stamps(most recipients have a job anyways). Can you explain to me how having no help at all except for charities(which depends exclusively on how charitable people want to be which is not very consistent) helps people?


Making someone dependent upon the State is a success how?
We live better. I'd much rather be living right now where we are "dependent upon the State" then when we were so "free" from the State and were more dependent on the market. Yeah things were much more fucked up then and are seriously fucked up in those places today where people aren't "dependent upon the State".


Again, you are using the argument of he is an enemy of working people.... Because capitalism is the enemy of the working class, and he supports a kind which is the most hostile to the working class.


no he is the enemy of federally mandated wage labor- which is the REAL enemy of the working people.I don't remember the federal government mandating that I be a wage-slave. I just got a job, before that I guess I was breaking the federal government's mandate...

Can you think of other ways to make a living rather than slaving for a paycheck just so you can pay taxes? I can...
Yes because that's exactly where my paycheck goes to, all of it goes to paying taxes. Would I like to pay taxes, hell no, but I would much rather get a paycheck with taxes taken out of it than not get a paycheck at all. And of course I can think of such a way of living, maybe you haven't realized but I'm a communist, you're on Revleft. Most of us can imagine such a living.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Ron Paul very well could be the end of American capitalism if elected. His policies are so awful, a collapse would be inevitable.

[Bronco]

The only people that support him are white college kids and confused republicans(they are all over my campus).

I think he is a racist asshole and his cult is annoying. I do, however, like seeing him talk about foreign policy at the Republican debates.

Yeah I was watching the debate a couple of nights back and it was refreshing to hear a Republican say something a bit different than the usual "Israel are our closest ally", "We don't negotiate with terrorists" etc. etc.

[Belleraphone]

Wow, I actually considered myself a little too sympathetic towards Ron Paul until I saw Mnemoysyne. Ron Paul's good points are that he wants to end corporations and is very much against war and pro-civil liberties.

Like I said earlier, that's where it stops. I can't honestly see why you're posting on revleft in favor of Ron Paul's economic policies. Do you really think cutting all those benefits will help the working class? The closest Laissez-faire economics have ever been to existing anywhere was right before the Great Depression. The economy is very unpredictable and very unstable. Many bourgeois were dethroned in the Great Depression and were usurped by others, and then they were overthrown too. In short, nobody wants it except people who follow debunked economists, not even the ruling class.

[postanarchism]

Wow, I actually considered myself a little too sympathetic towards Ron Paul until I saw Mnemoysyne. Ron Paul's good points are that he wants to end corporations and is very much against war and pro-civil liberties. ಠ_ಠ

Staying true to his brand of extreme libertarianism, Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives. When Chris Matthews pressed the issue, asking if it should be legal for shop owners to not allow blacks, Paul responded, “That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with.” Source: colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/ron_paul_would_have_voted_against_civil_rights_act .html

[Susurrus]

ಠ_ಠ
Source: colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/ron_paul_would_have_voted_against_civil_rights_act .html

You sre that's ron Paul? I remember an article about that for Rand Paul, but not Ron Paul

[DaringMehring]

Ron Paul is just another bourgeois politician. Why would anyone look to the bourgeois state, as anything other than the predictable implement of the bourgeoisie. There is no salvation in Ron Paul or any other bourgeois politician.

If anything, Ron Paul is less worth discussing, because he won't ever go anywhere.

As for him politically, he represents the libertarian philosophy that is the Kool-Aid of capitalists. They think that a capitalist system without any sort of government protections, would be a paradise -- a system that was violently rejected by workers from 1870-1940.

This idea permeates other candidates to some degree as well, basically it is the last ideological gasp of capitalists in the face of the material corruption, horror, and collapse of their system. The social basis of the idea is a small sliver of the capitalist class, and their petit-bourgeois followers, who psychologically want the system to make sense (to justify their privileged position, because they feel others get more advantage from the government's favors, or just because that is how they think). Both the sliver of the capitalist class, and the petit-bourgeois cadre, are small compared to more typical conservatives. However, given the self-destruction of capitalism, this group may grow over time, though undoubtedly slower than some new form of fascism.

Their view is completely idealist and that is why it is irrelevant. The capitalist system without any protections was a failure, and whats more, you cannot return to the past because new social forces have developed and matured since the so-called glory days of early capitalism.

Ron Paul -- and not just him but his followers as well -- has more or less no historical role whatsoever.

[Os Cangaceiros]

L
Nox- please explain what you mean by capitalism and 'more' capitalism. There is a world of difference between state sponsored corporations and a free market.

you've been reading Kevin Carson, haven't you.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You sre that's ron Paul? I remember an article about that for Rand Paul, but not Ron Paul

They're like the same person man, you could bet that if one supports something the other will too. Ron Paul did a very good job of brainwashing him.

[Agent Ducky]

Lol, there were a shitload of Ron Paul supporters at the Occupy event that I went to (yay, Orange County) but they all left after like half an hour because I think they got scared off by all the liberals and stuff. I was arguing with them.... They were hard to get through to. I had to draw little pictures on my hands for them in order to explain to them that politics isn't one dimensional and you can be a libertarian and a socialist at the same time.

People who confuse his campaign with a real revolution are the ones that confuse and kinda scare me. People who think that people who support Rage Against the Machine's political message would support Ron Paul for some fucked up reason.

[skizzy]

They're like the same person man, you could bet that if one supports something the other will too. Ron Paul did a very good job of brainwashing him.

I live in Kentucky, I can tell you, they are pretty much the same person..

[Mnemosyne]

Where to begin.

It's difficult to address sensationalism and name-calling elitism with logic, but I will make an effort.

Belleraphone- As a fellow character of Greek mythology, I will address you first. Your statements on the existence of Laissez-faire economics and the Great Depression are terribly misinformed. A true free market has NEVER existed in the United States- unless we are talking about the indigenous peoples who inhabited the land for centuries before. Secondly- the Great Depression was the result of massive control and regulation by president Hoover and the Federal Reserve... they know this and even Ben Bernake has agreed.

Sururrus- of course I'm not forgetting that... otherwise I wouldn't acknowledge the existence of mafia's and cartel's in the first place. That said- I'm not sure if your comment was more directed at issue #1 or #2... I'm thinking #2 in which case I will address it as such: are you suggesting that perhaps someone like Monsanto might hire mercenaries to ensure that their GMO corn is the only corn sold on supermarket shelves? If I'm interpreting your concern correctly has a hypothetical... then sure, nobody is saying that couldn't happen (even if it's terribly unlikely)... but then this is kind of the point of any political system/form of government, yes? To prevent such things either by protection, removal of private assets, etc. Bullies are unavoidable and it doesn't matter what kind of 'system' you're running, it is something you have to deal with- I think every interpretation of communism in the East has show us this.

DaringMehing- Please explain what you reference in history as being an example of how capitalism without regulation is a failure? Free markets have historically been the strongest and longest lasting economics markets of all... and they are capable of existing within all political systems (even the lack of IE anarchy). My guess is that you are making the mistake of tying together the free market and currency... to which you leave out an unlimited number of commodities based markets which have always existed among the war torn, destitute and homeless, etc., etc. People will ALWAYS have a desire to get things, either by want or need. Even one neighbor trading milk for sausage with his other neighbor is an example of a free market.

Agent Ducky- You absolutely can be a Libertarian and a Socialist at the same time. Libertarianism simply values the principles behind individual liberty and personal choice... if some people get together and decide socialism is the choice they want... more power to them. In fact- even the US constitution (if it was being followed) would allow for individual states to operate as socialist- including the public ownership of all property.

postanarchism- There are a couple youtube interviews available which feature Ron Paul discussing the topic. Yes, he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act because this has not removed racism, it has only required it to occur in more institutionalized ways. If a group of women want to start a restaurant (on property which they own) where no men are allowed, more power to them.... and vice versa. Forcing people to put on nice faces doesn't change their internal feelings. Again- at the state and local level, as a constitutionalist, he believes people should be able to do as they please. (assuming it does not infringe upon individual liberties) IE- if all redheads move to Levy County and decide within their own county government that anyone who is without red hair has to go to a different school- so be it. The blondes can do the same elsewhere.

Segregation is segregation- regardless of it's motive. BET is segregation just like Jim Crow laws. If you keep pointing out the differences between people, they will forever remain. Please remember that racism is a social construct and fluctuates throughout time, different cultural influences, etc. But with laws which permanently label us as 'group's- we are stuck that way.

Revolutionary Tool- yes, the government mandated wage labor by requiring you to have debt the moment you were born- and outlawing most forms of labor outside of taxed income. My own trade is a perfect example- the existence of apprenticeships is very common. People move all over the world to work with individuals who are masters of the craft- they often receive NO payment, but have paid room and board, along with instruction, in exchange for their labor. The US government makes such willing exchanges very, very difficult and has even attempted to prosecute people with charges of child labor and slavery. In other words, punishing those students who want to learn, along with those who want to teach them. Your McDonald's argument is futile- why is anyone working at McDonald's in the first place? This is just like when our government says 'there are no jobs!!!' and construction sites are closing down because there are no welders. There is a MASSIVE shortage in many trade fields- plumbing, farming (corps have just about killed that group though), machine mechanics, the list goes on. Why are people so focused on slaving for a paycheck instead of working to achieve mastery in the subject they are passionate about? Because as it is now, they have to in order to survive.

Not sure who said it- but they mentioned that his platform is the typical one of the GOP party... :confused: This is ridiculous. Both parties have made an art of championing things with words and then contradicting them with actions. The GOP like to talk about free markets and individual liberty- but they work harder against both than the Dem's do! ANY kind of free market philosophy is totally slandered by corporations and the central bank- they know it's bad for their business... not sure why you don't.

It's off putting that I'm discouraged to have a logical discussion which is oppositional to the 'tide'. Did I say Ron Paul was the 'salvation'? No, in fact, I'm quite sure I stressed that I do not feel that way... I am a farking anarchist.

My point is that absolute liberty (or even the effort towards it) is going to make anything you DO want much easier to achieve than the bureaucratic authoritarianism we have now. I happen to believe that voting for someone like Ron Paul is a much better option than *****ing from the sidelines... but that is just me.

My personal problem is with bigness. Doesn't matter what it is, socialism, communism, a democratic republic, etc., nothing BUT oppression and fascism can work in this large of a society. (talking about the 300+ million in America here) Which is why it MUST be broken into like-minded groups- people who value cats can create their own society which reflects such values. People who value dogs can live elsewhere and do the same. Some rouges who like both cats and dogs can create their own place... this is not idealistic, this is reflective of the sociology that human beings exhibit when they are not required to do otherwise- IE, under the thumb of oppression.

This website is a good enough example- you all come to congregate and discuss here because it was a community made for others who feel as you do. You, as a community, withhold judgement on philosophies you share and collectively pass judgement on ones you don't. (like Libertarianism apparently) ;)

Until some kind of massive awakening and revolt happens- things aren't going to dramatically change and I'm sensible (even if you don't believe I am) enough to know that. I am personally working on creating my own commune where myself and those who share my values can live together off the grid and the proverbial teat. I'm up to seven acres now with a very diverse garden, goats for milk and meat, chickens for eggs and meat and horses who perform my required labor- I butcher my animals myself and I enjoy the most delicious tomatoes I've ever tasted. What I can't get, I obtain through trade with farmer's or attend a local farmer's market= free market at work.
I feel rich but am considered apart of the 'agricultural poor' in my area- and I don't really give a shit. What I do care about is that without the taxes I am required to pay for wars and welfare checks which HURT as opposed to help- I would be able to share the fruits (literally and figuratively) of my labor much more generously.

[ZeroNowhere]

Wrong board.

[The Jay]

What if not everybody plays by the non-aggression principle? If there is a true libertarian society, why do you think that one man/woman could not amass enough capital to hire a private army and seize power from the peaceful communities? Is it not setting up a warlord's paradise?

[Susurrus]

Sururrus- of course I'm not forgetting that... otherwise I wouldn't acknowledge the existence of mafia's and cartel's in the first place. That said- I'm not sure if your comment was more directed at issue #1 or #2... I'm thinking #2 in which case I will address it as such: are you suggesting that perhaps someone like Monsanto might hire mercenaries to ensure that their GMO corn is the only corn sold on supermarket shelves? If I'm interpreting your concern correctly has a hypothetical... then sure, nobody is saying that couldn't happen (even if it's terribly unlikely)... but then this is kind of the point of any political system/form of government, yes? To prevent such things either by protection, removal of private assets, etc. Bullies are unavoidable and it doesn't matter what kind of 'system' you're running, it is something you have to deal with- I think every interpretation of communism in the East has show us this.


It's more like they might hire mercs to slaughter striking workers, though I suppose war between corps as well is not out of the question. Also, if large companies decide to merge resources and deny them to any competition, forming a trust, this can effectively lead to an economically indestructible monopoly.

And, as you said, the involvement of the government is on the side of the corporations, against the people and competition, so it's ineffective in stopping the problem.

[GatesofLenin]

The only reason Ron Paul gets supporters is because he's the 3rd choice. Think about it, we got the democrats or republicans and that's it! Some democracy!

[DaringMehring]

DaringMehing- Free markets have historically been the strongest and longest lasting economics markets of all...



A true free market has NEVER existed in the United States


You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.



Please explain what you reference in history as being an example of how capitalism without regulation is a failure?


Capitalism is not a static or idealized phenomenon, it goes through different phases and configurations. In the mid 19th century it was industrial capitalism without any protections for workers -- no 8-hour work day, no weekend, child labor, no occupational health and safety, no laws governing fair hiring and firing, etc.

You obviously don't know the long history of labor organization that developed to fight back against these conditions. It included many violent encounters with private thugs, and state repression. I recommend you study it.

The end result was a system of social protections under capitalism that you and Ron Paul people in general reject. You fail to realize that the capitalists you idolize, are the ones who put those protections into place, not because they wanted to, but because they eventually realized they had to, or they would lose everything -- working people would overthrow capitalism.



My guess is that you are making the mistake of tying together the free market and currency...


The free market is a fixed abstraction. I'm talking about capitalism, the materially observable system of social relations we live in.

Reference to "currency" "the Fed" and so on is Paul-speak for "another capitalism is possible." It ignores how our present currency, the Fed, etc. are outgrowths of the material dynamics of capitalism. These things are under the control of the bourgeoisie, who are the ruling class of capitalism.



Secondly- the Great Depression was the result of massive control and regulation by president Hoover and the Federal Reserve... they know this and even Ben Bernake has agreed.


This is the false idea that capitalism does not have a boom-bust cycle, and that depressions are only caused by some manipulations. It gets it all wrong. The boom-bust cycle is a natural feature of capitalism; the Fed was devised by the capitalists, and is a major tool that helps them lessen the boom-bust cycle.

"Massive control and regulation" is exactly the opposite of the truth -- the 1920s that were the wind-up for the Great Depression were known as the "roaring 20s" and were free-wheeling.

The Fed did make the Depression worse at some point -- by trying to "tighten the belt" when it shouldn't have. So yes, the Fed worsened the crisis at one juncture, but nobody can guarantee that appears to have been a result of stupidity and inexperience rather than any plan, and they quickly did an about-face.


People will ALWAYS have a desire to get things, either by want or need.

How they satisfy their wants and needs will vary based on the social relations. There is no law of the universe that says, wants can only be satisfied by a "free market."

I'm also disappointed you didn't contest when I said, we can't go back to previous capitalist configurations, because social forces have developed and matured since then. From a materialist perspective, it completely invalidates all your idealist Paul preaching, yet you let it slide. The fact is, that capitalist relations rest on the shape of capital. An inbuilt tendency of capitalism is to accumulate -- capitals grow and merge. That is why today we have capitals of incredible size, corporations that now outstrip mid-sized nations. Not only would you not want to go back to some previous phase of capitalism, bloodily rejected by the laborers, you simply cannot, with these actors, any more than you could restore feudal relations once the bourgeoisie had grown to a certain power.

[marl]

In Occupy Boston the only Ron Paul supporters were in the back of the march, and there was less than 5.

[Revolution starts with U]

Wow- some education really needs to happen before more people make an ass out of themselves.
That's right. Better get that nose in the books ;)


Couldn't 'hack it' as a doctor... he ran his own private practice for many, many years. In fact he was known in the community for regularly lowering his fees, refusing to accept medicare and medicaid payments and even giving care free of charge!

Dude "hyperbolic political rhetoric"... did you not catch that part? :laugh:
I was being facetious. Suffice it to say, the larger point is still true. He lives on government dollars while crying about people living on government dollars.


Having been at Occupy Wall St., yes there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters- and I'd much rather see this than people chanting for Obama or (insert-ignorant-right-winger-here).

Id rather they stop worshipping leaders all together. I find it incredibly ironic that some of the most cultist of "cult of personality" types are RP supporters; they worship him like Jesus, and believe he can do no wrong and wil save America. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad :crying:

To whoever just said that a free market would let the corporations run rampant... please educate yourself on the history of both the free market as an economic system and the corporation. You will see that the corporation was created as a government sponsored entity and only exists because of the government today.
So is private property :thumbup1:


Any 'regulation' that is created is done through those very same corporations and so is not regulation but competition elimination. It is not a coincidence that almost every industry in the nation is an oligopoly.

It's also no coincidence that the trend started long before the age of regulation. There's a reason competition is strongest in the countries, like France, that mandate it.


I find it funny how many people demonize the free market on here and those very same folks champion anarchism... the political system which has ALWAYS had a free market!

:confused: What?! :laugh:


Ron Paul is not my hero, nor do I agree with everything he says. However- based on his record, he shows more honesty and integrity than any politician I've seen on the 'main stage' as a choice for president in 2012.
Honesty and integrity like:
Running a newsletter for 40 years that routinely says things like "the animals (blacks) are coming" and "the only reason the LA Riots ended was because (the blacks) had to pick up their welfare checks"?
Or honesty and integrity like when this newsletter became public knowledge he started claiming not to have written it, nor known who wrote it?
Or competency as a leader to (lets say for the sake of argument he did not know he was running an overtly racist newsletter) allow this to go on without his knowledge for decades (nearly half a century)
... you mean honesty and integrity like that?



I have no doubt that if he were to be elected- he would absolutely work (even if in vain) to make drastic changes to our government. Odds are best that he wouldn't succeed but at least it would mark a time of awakening when people have finally chosen something different than the same old 70+ years of bullshit.

He would get things half done, in the places where they benefit large corporations the most. Maybe this wouldn't be his fault. But they certainly will take advantage of him to the best of his ability. It will be your typical dereg story.
And we all know when it comes to cutting government, the poor are gone after long before the rich are.


To those who say he is racist- there is no evidence of this except that which was created by the media and is completely contradictory to his stance as a libertarian... which means he does not look at people in groups but rather as individuals.

1) MI (Methodological Individualism) is the correct stance to take, and destroys the collectivism of racism. But you can think in MI terms and still be a racist, as long as you think the majority of individuals in one race are inferior
2) If he is not a racist, as seen by his newsletter, he is utterly incompetent as a leader. How do you let that go on for 40 years in your name?


I'm shocked that someone who is regularly blackballed by BOTH sides of the media (another oligopoly by the way), receives the greatest support by any candidate from the US military (and he is entirely anti-war and occupation), receives NO money from Goldman Sach's, Monsanto, JP Morgan or any of the others who equally financed Obama and McCain... doesn't have more support from you people? Instead you regurgitate ignorant statements about his supporters that sound like they came straight out of Rachael Maddow's mouth... Shesh it takes 5 seconds to at least check out the wikipedia page on the guy before you run your mouth.

Ya, we all get it... RP doesn't understand his own politics (free marketeering is handouts for the rich). But did you think the bolded part would impress us? :lol:



I think Ron Paul is an obvious choice for ANYONE who wants something better than what we've got: A corporatist economy in a fascist state.
Corporatism and fascism are both capitalism, buddy :thumbup1:



b) Let me restate: what you define as a corporation is an entity that was created and defined by the government. Without the laws that protect them (allowing them to file as individuals, allowing asset separation, etc., etc.) a 'corporation' would not exist. It is absolutely accepted in economics that sustained monopolies are IMPOSSIBLE in a free market. The only way you can have a monopoly is if you are the ONLY supplier of the product, or, if you continually offer the best quality with the best price/service/etc. None of which is permanently sustainable.

1) Don't believe the hype, bro
2) What you define as private property was created and defined by the government. Without the laws that protect it (giving monopoly power to the deed/property holder, no tresspassing, no unwilling taking, etc) "private property" would not exist (this is historically true. Sans the state, property tends to be far more public... but that doesn't even make sense to you, does it?).
3) That is not absolutely accepted at all. Many Misesians believe the corporation could still be protected under free market law; contracts are contracts.
4) Or you can have a monopoly if you aggressively push out the competition, and buy out any undercutters

As has already been said to you:


You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Please realize that "free markets have proven to be the most effective" is incompatible with "free markets have never existed." One or the other has to be true (it is that free markets have never existed, and never will).



The end result was a system of social protections under capitalism that you and Ron Paul people in general reject. You fail to realize that the capitalists you idolize, are the ones who put those protections into place, not because they wanted to, but because they eventually realized they had to, or they would lose everything -- working people would overthrow capitalism.

Drill this into your head; repeat it everyday like it's one of the 12 steps to capitalism recovery. Hopefully soon you will at least become a market socialist...

[Mnemosyne]

Goodness- many responses, but I appreciate the discussion.

1) A free market has never existed as THE economic system of the United States. This does not diminish the statement of: 'it has proven to be most effective'-- there are places outside of one almost 230ish year old nation. I also mentioned that the US black market is the closest thing to a free market- but this wasn't addressed. Yes, free markets have always coexisted with anarchism, it makes sense when you remember that Adam Smith said 'An absolutely free market can only survive with an absolutely free people'.

2)DaringMehning- I would respond to your post, but I'm getting confused... because capitalism really has no *written in stone* definition- I can tell we are interpreting it differently. My guess is that you use it in the Marxist sense, while I use it in the free market sense- this was my mistake to muddle things as such. Corporatism and state supported markets are called capitalism today, but wouldn't have been in the 18th century.

If when you addressed capitalism, you represented it as a free market system, then I'm sorry but your statements are false. Recessions are inevitable in any system depending on various uncontrollable constants: resources, diseases, natural disasters, just to name a few. However- recessions do NOT have to grow into depressions... you should realize that the "roaring 20's" as a term does not describe the economic state of affairs but rather the cultural revolution of sorts in terms of women's rights, organized crime and the arts; quite frankly, jazz. 1920's America was in an economic recession, made into a depression in 1929- and yes, the Fed's own chairmen has in fact stated 'it was our fault'.

3) Who here is saying that wants can only be satisfied by a free market? Wants can be satisfied by thievery but this is not my point.

4) Just thought I would also stress that it would seem people here define 'free market' in the modern sense that it requires private capital... and this is not true. A free market can include co-owned, state owned, or even distributed capital. This is why while socialism could never include a free market, a free market could include socialism.

5) I agree- worshiping of leaders is apart of the dependency culture which our society has given birth to... and I'm certain I don't see any such worshiping in this thread...
However, I am desperately motivated to see a change in my lifetime. Yes, I do what I can to make sure such a thing happens on a personal level- but you are telling me that you would rather allow the same national fanfare to go on than to entertain any kind of alteration? EVEN if such change resulted in overwhelming negative consequences, I would rather see a straw break the camels back than to watch this three-legged, toothless dog dangle on life support even just one more day.

6) The newsletter has been proven to have zero association with Ron Paul. Even if you hate the man please read the dribble and it will be evident. The group requested use of his name for their support group and then pretty much did whatever they pleased. So some racists like Ron Paul... you don't think the same could be said for any politician to ever take office? It also didn't go on for 40 years.... or are you being facetious again?

7) Why the rant on private property? :confused: Did I uphold the value of private property somewhere? I mentioned that I do in fact own private property... but I don't really have much of a choice if I want to survive as I do now do I?
Let me make something clear... again....
I am against wage labor and think it will always lead to indentured servitude.
I am against the private ownership of property.
I am against the private ownership of animals- or any LIFE in general... yes, plants too.
Sadly, principle does not fill my belly at the moment.

Are you shocked that I would still vote for Ron Paul over any of the other loonies on the ticket? (It's doubtful his name will even be on the ticket in which case I will do what I normally do: not vote)

8) My point of bringing up his military support was because despite what the war mongers would have us think- the US military is overwhelmingly against not just our combat 'missions' around the world, but our occupation also. The fact that he has been consistently against every single combat effort since WWII- AND he has enough sense to acknowledge that WWII was the direct cause of the United States' intervention in WWI- is important to me. Being a passionate student of history- America's authoritarian imperialism predates any of us here, the first land they invaded being that of the Native Nations. (who collectively represented some of the best examples known of any political or economic system on the planet)

9) You are so defensive 'Revolution Starts with U' that I'm not sure you are reading my words... You are confusing my recognition of the success exhibited by free market systems, and my choice of Ron Paul over existing circumstances, as staunch support for either. I have no problem with any political or economic system: not even dictatorships or monarchies since there have been successful existences of both. The Dalia Lama doesn't make a bad dictator.

10) Someone mentioned creating a warlord's paradise, and I'm not sure where they got the idea that my philosophy is one of pacifism. I don't *like* war and violence, but I own several guns and would not show hesitation to use them in my self-defense.

11) France was mentioned. France used to have one of the best free markets on the planet! To say that France has the best competition is... generous... but to say it is because of their mandates is incorrect. France strictly regulates some industries while leaving others completely alone.

I think I addressed everything- please let me know.

PS- I've been called 'bro'(or other variations of the same term) I think three times now in this thread, just for the record... I am female. Not saying I don't appreciate the fraternal rhetoric however. :)

[Susurrus]

I think I addressed everything- please let me know.

PS- I've been called 'bro'(or other variations of the same term) I think three times now in this thread, just for the record... I am female. Not saying I don't appreciate the fraternal rhetoric however. :)

You didn't get mine, comrade. :(

[Mnemosyne]

My apologies Susurrus! The last post I saw from you was in discussion of an article being about Rand vs. Ron.



It's more like they might hire mercs to slaughter striking workers, though I suppose war between corps as well is not out of the question. Also, if large companies decide to merge resources and deny them to any competition, forming a trust, this can effectively lead to an economically indestructible monopoly.

And, as you said, the involvement of the government is on the side of the corporations, against the people and competition, so it's ineffective in stopping the problem.

Well, let us stick with the Monsanto example- I prefer it because they deal with essentials. Suppose Monsanto decided to monopolize corn (they already have as a matter of fact!) via force. Sounds a little bit like the drug trade no?... if even primarily in the opposite direction.

For starters, the history of hiring mercenaries, even all the way back to the Celtiberians being hired by the Greeks, doesn't have a good track record as being a successful tactic. People consistently are overwhelmingly more resistant and aggressive towards private armies as opposed to state sponsored ones- even in the cases of non-human violent crimes like animal poaching. Sociologically, there is a greater fear associated with the power of government (along with organized crime and religion) than there is about supremely trained men with weapons hired for *odd jobs*... it's strange but true. Some studies have suggested that it is a reflection of class warfare- mercenaries are usually 'nobodies' while sponsored military leaders are 'somebodies'. A fascinating example which showcases this is the resistance given to the Samurai's (the elites) compared to the Ninja's (the lower class).

I digress.

There really is no effective way to prevent people from obtaining resources, only products. I should stress that genetically engineered plants are copyrighted products, not resources.

My argument is: why would the workers be required to strike in the first place? This suggests that they have no other option besides wage labor (or even just wage labor for this particular company) for their 'income'/gaining of capital/survival/whatever.

This argument could be applied to various economic systems, but let's just go with the free market since it is the topic of discussion: It is known that when people are capable, they all seek education in their own interests. If you are free of taxes, this significantly lessens your production requirements. If you are free of being required to pay for property, either purchase price or rent, your burden is lessened more. If you are freed of a currency system (as in, something not based upon commodities)- you have no production burden.

In a completely free market- so many unlimited possibilities would arrive for people to either work for someone else, or create their own industry that any corp desiring employees would have to offer some pretty sweet deals. Tomatoes cost me *nothing* to grow... however, there is labor. But, Eggs? They pop out of my chickens for *free*, no labor on my part either. I currently give away what is over my consumption requirements... but even to sell a dozen of either for .50 cents means I'm making a 100(+)% profit. (depending on how I value my own labor)

My tiresome rambling is essentially to say that currently- our concepts of 'worth' and 'value' are dependent upon a consistently devaluing currency and a required servitude to the state. To say that in a completely free environment, people would still slave and be abused at some factory makes no sense. What benefit would they get from slaving that they could not obtain elsewhere? Food, water and shelter being the most BASIC requirements, in a free market- these are impossible to monopolize.

[Manifesto]

I may not like his economic policies but ffs I just American imperialism to end and he seems like the least asshole/hypocritical politician out there.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Can you think of other ways to make a living rather than slaving for a paycheck just so you can pay taxes? Uh
Do you know where you are right now?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

On the topic of Ayn, I've read her books of course but would not describe myself as a 'fan'... and neither would Ron Paul so I'm not sure I see your point...?

I don't know, a libertarian names their kid RAND and they're not a fan of Ayn RAND? Come on...


yes, the government mandated wage labor by requiring you to have debt the moment you were born-So we're wage slaves because of the national debt? I thought the thing which dictated whether you were a wage-slave or not was your relations with the means of production. Silly me, it's the relation you have with the national debt :rolleyes:.


My own trade is a perfect example- the existence of apprenticeships is very common. People move all over the world to work with individuals who are masters of the craft- they often receive NO payment, but have paid room and board, along with instruction, in exchange for their labor. The US government makes such willing exchanges very, very difficult and has even attempted to prosecute people with charges of child labor and slavery.You ever think people might actually try and exploit people like that? Remember the story where foreign kids were brought to America to supposedly learn about America or whatever but ended up just being cheaply paid workers in a factory and they all walked off the job. But no, nobody would ever even think about doing that bad government!


Your McDonald's argument is futile- why is anyone working at McDonald's in the first place? This is just like when our government says 'there are no jobs!!!' and construction sites are closing down because there are no welders. There is a MASSIVE shortage in many trade fields- plumbing, farming (corps have just about killed that group though), machine mechanics, the list goes on. Why are people so focused on slaving for a paycheck instead of working to achieve mastery in the subject they are passionate about? Because as it is now, they have to in order to survive.

As people have always done under capitalism. How would that go away because of some libertarian fantasy land?

[RNL]

Uh
Do you know where you are right now?
I doubt it. I thought I was in OI for a minute there. Who left the gate open?

[Revolution starts with U]

1) A free market has never existed as THE economic system of the United States. This does not diminish the statement of: 'it has proven to be most effective'-- there are places outside of one almost 230ish year old nation. I also mentioned that the US black market is the closest thing to a free market- but this wasn't addressed. Yes, free markets have always coexisted with anarchism, it makes sense when you remember that Adam Smith said 'An absolutely free market can only survive with an absolutely free people'.

1) Care to provide any historical examples of anarchism with free markets?
2) Yes the drug trade has grown rather exponentially, huh?



4) Just thought I would also stress that it would seem people here define 'free market' in the modern sense that it requires private capital... and this is not true. A free market can include co-owned, state owned, or even distributed capital. This is why while socialism could never include a free market, a free market could include socialism.

How are you defining free market?



However, I am desperately motivated to see a change in my lifetime. Yes, I do what I can to make sure such a thing happens on a personal level- but you are telling me that you would rather allow the same national fanfare to go on than to entertain any kind of alteration? EVEN if such change resulted in overwhelming negative consequences, I would rather see a straw break the camels back than to watch this three-legged, toothless dog dangle on life support even just one more day.

No, I'm with you there. I just think RP is not going to be the stop-gap you're looking for. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


6) The newsletter has been proven to have zero association with Ron Paul. Even if you hate the man please read the dribble and it will be evident. The group requested use of his name for their support group and then pretty much did whatever they pleased. So some racists like Ron Paul... you don't think the same could be said for any politician to ever take office? It also didn't go on for 40 years.... or are you being facetious again?

Are you sure we're talking about the same "Ron Paul Newsletter" that his campaign put out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Ron_Paul_news letter_controversy
They were official sister ;)


7) Why the rant on private property? :confused: Did I uphold the value of private property somewhere? I mentioned that I do in fact own private property... but I don't really have much of a choice if I want to survive as I do now do I?
Let me make something clear... again....
I am against wage labor and think it will always lead to indentured servitude.
I am against the private ownership of property.
I am against the private ownership of animals- or any LIFE in general... yes, plants too.
Sadly, principle does not fill my belly at the moment.

My mistake :lol:


8) My point of bringing up his military support was because despite what the war mongers would have us think- the US military is overwhelmingly against not just our combat 'missions' around the world, but our occupation also. The fact that he has been consistently against every single combat effort since WWII- AND he has enough sense to acknowledge that WWII was the direct cause of the United States' intervention in WWI- is important to me. Being a passionate student of history- America's authoritarian imperialism predates any of us here, the first land they invaded being that of the Native Nations. (who collectively represented some of the best examples known of any political or economic system on the planet)

:thumbup1:


9) You are so defensive 'Revolution Starts with U' that I'm not sure you are reading my words... You are confusing my recognition of the success exhibited by free market systems, and my choice of Ron Paul over existing circumstances, as staunch support for either. I have no problem with any political or economic system: not even dictatorships or monarchies since there have been successful existences of both. The Dalia Lama doesn't make a bad dictator.

I get your point but...
say that to a peasant. Seriously...
I admit, I was mistaken about your position, and apoligize. But seriously? The current incarnation of the Dalai Llama, stripped of his political heritage, is a pretty good guy. But the position of the historical Dalai Llama is certainly "a bad dictator."
Ceaser was pretty pro plebian, shall we praise him now too?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I think Ron Paul is an obvious choice for ANYONE who wants something better than what we've got: A corporatist economy in a fascist state.

Restrict Mnemosyne.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Ron Paul is a fucking white supremacist.

Mnemosyne, I don't know if you're aware of this fact or you just simply are addicted to milquetoast political stances but holy shit how have you not been restricted yet?

[The Jay]

Ron Paul is a fucking white supremacist.

Mnemosyne, I don't know if you're aware of this fact or you just simply are addicted to milquetoast political stances but holy shit how have you not been restricted yet?

I think it's because she's been respectful, but she'll probably be restricted soon. Who knows, she may change her mind.

[Susurrus]

I don't know, a libertarian names their kid RAND and they're not a fan of Ayn RAND? Come on...


According to wikipedia, it was originally Randy. Also, it seems unlikely that a christian would be a nya rnad fan.

[Susurrus]

Ron Paul is a fucking white supremacist.


Source?

[DaringMehring]

As far as I can gather, the poster Mnemosyne claims:

1) An ideal system should have a "free market" -- where free market equals a certain abstraction she has in her head.
2) She does not believe in ownership of the means of production.

We can take these two outside from her misinformed views on "currency" "the Fed" "government" and "debt" being the causes of wage labor and the boom-bust cycle.

The two questions to anyone who advocates both 1) and 2) are --- a) what does this future system look like. First of all, in theory -- how are means of production socialized, without a state or any control over exchange. What possible resolution is there?

In fact, poster Mnemosyne falls back on several anarcho-capitalist standards, like the superiority of private armies and the basic goodness of corporations (they are voluntary cooperative enterprises after all), that show, she is not anywhere close to a society without ownership of the means of production. And to add to her utopia, she simply asserts that such a society would not have wage labor.

The so-called evidence -- how it works on her small-scale farm, under capitalism. As if this earlier, less productive, form of agricultural organization, a form that is obsolete and has been almost completely supplanted, would serve as the basis for the prosperous society of the future.

The second question b) is, what social forces exist to create this transformation. As Marxists, we use sociology and historical materialism, to understand what the direction of social evolution is. We evaluate what forces are opposed, what contradictions exist, how the forces of production will develop, and so on, and use that as a road map to understanding the possible, not the utopian, future.

We understand that the proletariat is the leading force for social change in capitalism. This has been confirmed by the Russian revolution and the Paris commune. We know why -- they are the exploited -- and we know what type of society is possible for them to craft. They do not create a utopia by drawing from a blueprint, the day after seizing power. They inherit the forces of production of capitalism, its ideological baggage, and to some degree, a memory of its relations of production. Then they alter and abolish to suit.

So not only is Mnemosyne's bizarre future society self-contradictory, it has no social and material basis and therefore approximately zero chance of replacing capitalism.

[Tablo]

Source?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

He might not be a white nationalist, but he does oppose the Civil Rights Act.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Also, it seems unlikely that a christian would be a nya rnad fan.

Tell that to the Rand fans I've met...

[Revolution starts with U]

Taking Ron Paul's racist and homophobic newsletters into account we can draw one of two conclusions: (look them up if you doubt)
1)RP is a white supremacists who believes blacks "do not have sensible political opinions" and that MLK day is "hate whitey day" and also that birthright citizenship is wrong, which also makes him a white nationalist
2)RP is utterly incompetent for letting these words go on in his name for decades.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Source?

the best part of revleft is that the burden of proof is on a comrade and not the fucking fascist supporting other fascists

there's this http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rand-pauls-base-neo-nazis-white-supremacist

this http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

this http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

and i'm sure you can probably find a lot more without looking too hard

[Sosa]

RP isn't even a pro-civil rights guy. He's a statist, he believes that states should make decisions instead of the Federal government. Basically just moving these issues to the state level, so instead of the Fed telling you what to do or not to do its the individually states that would hold that power. For example, the legality of same-sex marriages should be left to the states as should any other social issue like abortion. It's ok that you're rights are trampled as long as its the state not the Fed doing it.

[Revolution starts with U]

RP isn't even a pro-civil rights guy. He's a statist, he believes that states should make decisions instead of the Federal government. Basically just moving these issues to the state level, so instead of the Fed telling you what to do or not to do its the individually states that would hold that power. For example, the legality of same-sex marriages should be left to the states as should any other social issue like abortion. It's ok that you're rights are trampled as long as its the state not the Fed doing it.

OMFG This cannot be said enough :thumbup1:

[El Louton]

Why do they support him?
FOX NEWS!

[Sam Varriano]

Basically he is a terrific irl troll because he got republicans to appluad the idea of legalizing herion at a south carolina debate like a few months ago. Still a reactionary guy, though.

[RadioRaheem84]

Ron Paul is probably the worst guy to ever come out of the GOP. He is literally co-opting my generation like Brylcreem took over 50s youth.

I hate it. Everyone who thinks they're being anti-establishment is supporting this reactionary tool.

[Belleraphone]

Ron Paul is probably the worst guy to ever come out of the GOP.

Haha, no.