Ron Paul, Friend or Foe?

[B0LSHEVIK]

Personally, I've never liked the guy. I've known plenty of suburbanites with their "revolution" bumper stickers and dumb capitalist-libertarian cliches about freedom and government. But I always found him and his supporters to be pretty naive about the economics of capitalism claiming individual (and corporate) freedom is all we need. He probably is a racist, at least a little. And he has really stupid ideas. But, he also has some of the best ideas (among those in the current 2 party system). I like that he calls the US an empire. I like that he calls the drug war horse shit. But hes against abortion too. So, fuck. To me, he's a foe. more of the same with a little twist.

[The Douche]

He is not naive regarding economics at all. He understands capitalism very well, and wants it to permeate our society even more deeply than it currently does.

Why does this thread even exist, I hate election season...

[Tommy4ever]

Foe.

[aty]

If you dont know the answer to this question you should go on a different forum.

I recommend this http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/ or ***************

[aty]

He is not naive regarding economics at all. He understands capitalism very well, and wants it to permeate our society even more deeply than it currently does.

Why does this thread even exist, I hate election season...

If he understood capitalism he would be a marxist.

[Tim Cornelis]

Judging by the amount of YouTube comments in his favour, Ron Paul will win by 72% of the votes.

[The Douche]

If he understood capitalism he would be a marxist.

Thats not true. Pro-capitalists do understand capitalism, they just didn't draw from that understanding, the same conclusions as you.


If you think all that has to happen, is somebody understands the economic system of capitalism and that they will then automatically become a communist you are very naive.

[Bronco]

Hes got some interesting stuff to say on foreign policy but beyond that there's nothing to support and he's certainly no friend of the left, I'm not sure why there seems to be a bit of a fascination with him on here really

[ed miliband]

He is not naive regarding economics at all. He understands capitalism very well, and wants it to permeate our society even more deeply than it currently does.

Why does this thread even exist, I hate election season...

Capitalism could surely not survive without the state to prop it up, crudely speaking. Paul's dream of no state intervention in the economy would be impossible today.

[B0LSHEVIK]

He is not naive regarding economics at all. He understands capitalism very well, and wants it to permeate our society even more deeply than it currently does.

Why does this thread even exist, I hate election season...

He understands the principles of an capitalist economic society. But, he like other libertarian capitalists, refuse to believe in: externalities, or economic stratification as being inherent to capitalism, or in the effect of a reserve army of labor etc etc. Sure, he understands macro/micro capitalist economics, but he doesnt understand the marxist critique of it. He has blinders and he's narrow minded.

[The Douche]

Capitalism could surely not survive without the state to prop it up, crudely speaking. Paul's dream of no state intervention in the economy would be impossible today.

Paul doesn't believe in "no state intervention" obviously, since one of his huge talking points is that the federal reserve is privately owned, and not under the control of the people/the state...

Paul believes in the use of the state to defend property.


But, he like other libertarian capitalists, refuse to believe in: externalities, or economic stratification as being inherent to capitalism, or in the effect of a reserve army of labor etc etc.

I have never met an actual, intelligent/educated pro-capitalist who doesn't understand and accept these things. They just don't use the same language as anti-capitalists.

[ed miliband]

Paul doesn't believe in "no state intervention" obviously, since one of his huge talking points is that the federal reserve is privately owned, and not under the control of the people/the state...

Paul believes in the use of the state to defend property.


I should have said, there's obviously a gap between Paul's rhetoric and reality, he's a politician after all. Didn't he get caught out using federal subsidies to spend on different building projects in his district or something like that? lul

[The Douche]

I should have said, there's obviously a gap between Paul's rhetoric and reality, he's a politician after all. Didn't he get caught out using federal subsidies to spend on different building projects in his district or something like that? lul

Most of the radical free market types will tell you, if engage with them that they do believe the state should defend private property, "no state in the economy" is just a talking point, so this becomes especially clear when dealing with a politician, since they are forced to use talking points, and not clearly present their politics for people to consider.

[ed miliband]

Most of the radical free market types will tell you, if engage with them that they do believe the state should defend private property, "no state in the economy" is just a talking point, so this becomes especially clear when dealing with a politician, since they are forced to use talking points, and not clearly present their politics for people to consider.

Actually, I'd assume the state existing to protect property was a given for that sort anyway. I was talking more about things like bank bailouts, which Paul claims to oppose.

[The Douche]

Actually, I'd assume the state existing to protect property was a given for that sort anyway. I was talking more about things like bank bailouts, which Paul claims to oppose.

Well, Paul probably would oppose bank bailouts if he were the president.

In fact, his opposition/support would probably not matter, if he were president there would probably not be enough tax revenue to bail out any banks.

[aty]

Thats not true. Pro-capitalists do understand capitalism, they just didn't draw from that understanding, the same conclusions as you.

If you think all that has to happen, is somebody understands the economic system of capitalism and that they will then automatically become a communist you are very naive.
There is a difference between understanding markets inside capitalism and understand the structures of capitalism as such.

If you are a neoliberal like Ron Paul and believe in fairytales as "the markets will solve everything" you clearly dont understand capitalism. Simple as that.
Or you are a rich bastard that will profit more from capitalism but do understand that sometimes you need regulations for capitalism to survive.

[The Douche]

There is a difference between understanding markets inside capitalism and understand the structures of capitalism as such.

If you are a neoliberal like Ron Paul and believe in fairytales as "the markets will solve everything" you clearly dont understand capitalism. Simple as that.
Or you are a rich bastard that will profit more from capitalism but do understand that sometimes you need regulations for capitalism to survive.

Paul isn't a neoliberal, he is a paleolibertarian/paleoconservative.

And markets do correct themselves, at the expense of the working class (i.e. austerity measures), the variable in the equation is whether or not the working class allows the market to correct at their expense. (i.e. fightback).

[El Louton]

Foe. Although Maggie Thatcher is my hero...

[aty]

Paul isn't a neoliberal, he is a paleolibertarian/paleoconservative.

And markets do correct themselves, at the expense of the working class (i.e. austerity measures), the variable in the equation is whether or not the working class allows the market to correct at their expense. (i.e. fightback).
paleo, neo, whatever. He believes in a totally free market.

That is a matter of definition if markets "correct" themselves. The position that Ron Paul and other liberals have is that the markets always make the society a better place, because of an "invisible hand". They dont even understand Adam Smiths concept about an "invisible hand".

They dont correct themselves. What they do is that they destroy the lifes for the working class in favour of the rich. Maybe we should say that they correct themselves for the rich, but clearly not for the proletariat.
So as a conclusion, markets dont correct themselves, only for the bourgeoise.

If you have the position of believing that markets always correct themselves, why are you not a liberal? This is very wierd.
How can you say that liberals understand how capitalism works? Clearly they do not, if you believe that, why are you not a liberal?

[The Douche]

aty, you're forcing your world view on Paul, instead of understanding what his view is, and understanding his approach to politics.

Paul and his ilk do not think that capitalism will make everybody rich, and they don't say it will either.

I don't think its a good thing for the market to correct itself, I'm just saying that it does, that a pretty much undeniable fact. (though now there are other variables, namely the environment/limited resources)

[Nox]

He's a fucking scumbag.

[Drosophila]

Why the hell are there two threads on this idiot?

[aty]

aty, you're forcing your world view on Paul, instead of understanding what his view is, and understanding his approach to politics.

Paul and his ilk do not think that capitalism will make everybody rich, and they don't say it will either.

I don't think its a good thing for the market to correct itself, I'm just saying that it does, that a pretty much undeniable fact. (though now there are other variables, namely the environment/limited resources)
His view is that free markets is the best way to organise the society as in his view it is the ultimate tool for progress. And it was you that started the whole "market correct themselves debate". Of course they do in some way as people need to eat.

I said that Ron Paul belives that ""the markets will solve everything. And if you believe something like that you clearly dont understand capitalism as the markets wont solve everything. They wont solve the climate crisis, they wont solve the problems of the working class, they wont solve the huge unemployment, they wont solve poverty and hunger, etc.

So if he understood capitalism he would be a marxist, as capitalism is not a sustainable system. Both in the way the productive forces are starting to overlap the bourgeoise property relations and the whole climate crisis. Do you understand or are you going to continue do defend liberals?

[Decolonize The Left]

His view is that free markets is the best way to organise the society as in his view it is the ultimate tool for progress. And it was you that started the whole "market correct themselves debate". Of course they do in some way as people need to eat.

I said that Ron Paul belives that ""the markets will solve everything. And if you believe something like that you clearly dont understand capitalism as the markets wont solve everything. They wont solve the climate crisis, they wont solve the problems of the working class, they wont solve the huge unemployment, they wont solve poverty and hunger, etc.

So if he understood capitalism he would be a marxist, as capitalism is not a sustainable system. Both in the way the productive forces are starting to overlap the bourgeoise property relations and the whole climate crisis. Do you understand or are you going to continue do defend liberals?

cmoney wasn't 'defending liberals,' he was critiquing your naive and ill-developed elaboration of Ron Paul's supposed platform.

For example, you say:

I said that Ron Paul belives that ""the markets will solve everything. And if you believe something like that you clearly dont understand capitalism as the markets wont solve everything. They wont solve the climate crisis, they wont solve the problems of the working class, they wont solve the huge unemployment, they wont solve poverty and hunger, etc.

In the first place, "markets" are not capitalistic in nature - a market is merely the existence of a system of trade of some sort. So for example, with ten people in a room and no money, there could be a market for the only piece of bread. People could offer things to the person with the piece of bread, or they could agree to share it. Regardless, the existence of scarcity necessitates the existence of markets.

In the second place, yes libertarians do believe that the capitalist market can solve most problems, including climate change. The existence of "green energy" and "sustainable products" is just the beginning of climate change being integrated into the overall capitalist system. They also believe that capitalism can help the working class - just read anything here by Vanguard1917 to see what I mean - they will claim that capitalism helps the working class achieve a higher standard of living and that this is a good thing. Sure it exploits them, but this is a 'desirable' situation because of the overall good it brings to the people.

Then you say:

So if he understood capitalism he would be a marxist, as capitalism is not a sustainable system. Both in the way the productive forces are starting to overlap the bourgeoise property relations and the whole climate crisis.

You don't think that Ron Paul 'understands' capitalism? Are you so naive to think that he hasn't read Marx? He's probably read Capital - he probably understands the 'arguments' being made by Marxists but he isn't a Marxist. So.... he disagrees.

Yes capitalism isn't sustainable. We, as Marxists, understand this because we believe that the economic analysis laid forth by Marx was accurate and correct - yet a lot of people don't think so.

Make sense?

- August

[The Douche]

His view is that free markets is the best way to organise the society as in his view it is the ultimate tool for progress. And it was you that started the whole "market correct themselves debate". Of course they do in some way as people need to eat.

I said that Ron Paul belives that ""the markets will solve everything. And if you believe something like that you clearly dont understand capitalism as the markets wont solve everything. They wont solve the climate crisis, they wont solve the problems of the working class, they wont solve the huge unemployment, they wont solve poverty and hunger, etc.

So if he understood capitalism he would be a marxist, as capitalism is not a sustainable system. Both in the way the productive forces are starting to overlap the bourgeoise property relations and the whole climate crisis. Do you understand or are you going to continue do defend liberals?

Paul doesn't think "markets will solve everything", in the way that you're suggesting. He does think markets will separate the wheat from chaff, he is a social-darwinist, like all capitalists.


Do you understand or are you going to continue do defend liberals?

Obviously you are the one who doesn't understand if you think I am defending liberals. What I am doing is explaining to you what Paul, and other pro-capitalists think.

It is absurdly arrogant of you to say that people who have spent their whole lives studying economics, people who probably even understand marxism better than you (even though they are not marxists) are just wrong/stupid/foolish or whatever.

Why don't you understand that it is possible to understand capitalism, and agree with it? Do you think that if you taught Bill Gates a seminar on capitalism he would suddenly donate all his money to some revolutionary organization or something?:laugh:

[aty]

cmoney wasn't 'defending liberals,' he was critiquing your naive and ill-developed elaboration of Ron Paul's supposed platform.
So I have to write all of his political programme here before giving him any critique?




In the first place, "markets" are not capitalistic in nature - a market is merely the existence of a system of trade of some sort. So for example, with ten people in a room and no money, there could be a market for the only piece of bread. People could offer things to the person with the piece of bread, or they could agree to share it. Regardless, the existence of scarcity necessitates the existence of markets. I am very aware that markets as such is not = capitalism. What gave you the impression that I did not know that and starting explaining things?



In the second place, yes libertarians do believe that the capitalist market can solve most problems, including climate change. The existence of "green energy" and "sustainable products" is just the beginning of climate change being integrated into the overall capitalist system. They also believe that capitalism can help the working class - just read anything here by Vanguard1917 to see what I mean - they will claim that capitalism helps the working class achieve a higher standard of living and that this is a good thing. Sure it exploits them, but this is a 'desirable' situation because of the overall good it brings to the people.

You don't think that Ron Paul 'understands' capitalism? Are you so naive to think that he hasn't read Marx? He's probably read Capital - he probably understands the 'arguments' being made by Marxists but he isn't a Marxist. So.... he disagrees.

Yes capitalism isn't sustainable. We, as Marxists, understand this because we believe that the economic analysis laid forth by Marx was accurate and correct - yet a lot of people don't think so.

Make sense?
Yes I know that liberals have that view? So what, it does not mean that they understand anything. They have heard our arguments about capitalism not being a sustainable economic system but they dont listen.

Clearly they have not understood what capitalism is or how it will not work. Just look at how they now are starting to call the current economic system "socialism" or "crony capitalism". It is always something "outside" capitalism that is the problem. In the 70s it was the workers movement that was the problem, now it is the state etc.
I myself as a marxist think that capitalism will help the working class until the productive forces overlaps the property relations.


Paul doesn't think "markets will solve everything", in the way that you're suggesting. He does think markets will separate the wheat from chaff, he is a social-darwinist, like all capitalists.
Yes, and in that way markets will take care of most problems and lead to the best society possible. You clearly dont understand how capitalism works if you have this view.
Marx understood big parts of capitalism, Ron Paul maybe understand how markets work, but he does not understand the economic system capitalism.



Obviously you are the one who doesn't understand if you think I am defending liberals. What I am doing is explaining to you what Paul, and other pro-capitalists think.
It is absurdly arrogant of you to say that people who have spent their whole lives studying economics, people who probably even understand marxism better than you (even though they are not marxists) are just wrong/stupid/foolish or whatever.

Why don't you understand that it is possible to understand capitalism, and agree with it? Do you think that if you taught Bill Gates a seminar on capitalism he would suddenly donate all his money to some revolutionary organization or something?:laugh:Because if you understand capitalism as one of many historical economic systems you will understand that it is not a sustainable society and we will need a new economic system. You can be a marxist and agree that capitalism is the best economic system at this time. Or you can be a marxist and think that capitalism is not the best economic system at this time.

But if you understand capitalism you are a marxist. You can even be a marxist and a capitalist, and fight for capitalism because it is in your short-term interest.

And please, people studying economics today are totally indoctrinated by the neoclassical school. And the neoclassical school dont understand capitalism.

[SacRedMan]

I don't see why he could be a friend...

[Walt]

"Education isn't a right" -Ron Paul

Anyone who wishes to replace the state unofficially with corporatists need not be followed.

The Mises propagandist campaign on the internet is surely funded by the Koch Bros. No doubt the Cato Institute is. If you take one visit on YouTube (Promoted Videos/Advertisements), you see an Austrian fantasist, like Tom Woods, talking about laissez faire utopia. You'd think to yourself: How much are they actually spending to fund these campaigns to confuse economic illiterate children who spout slogan talking points like "Freedom!" or "No Gubbermint!".

These are the real fools.

Sadly, in the end, they are simply just adding to the GOP's base of republiCONs. He's a foe in every way.

[The Douche]

aty, I'm just going to write you off as a troll because of this:


You can be a marxist and agree that capitalism is the best economic system at this time.


You can even be a marxist and a capitalist, and fight for capitalism because it is in your short-term interest.

You are patently wrong here. Marxists do not fight for/support capitalism.

Capitalists understand how capitalism works and that is why the support it. Others who are not capitalists understand how capitalism works and they support it because they think/hope they will become rich because of it.

I'm not responding to you anymore, your comments are absolutely laughable, and if you think you can be a pro-capitalist marxist, then you're a moron/troll.

[aty]

You are patently wrong here. Marxists do not fight for/support capitalism.

Capitalists understand how capitalism works and that is why the support it. Others who are not capitalists understand how capitalism works and they support it because they think/hope they will become rich because of it.

I'm not responding to you anymore, your comments are absolutely laughable, and if you think you can be a pro-capitalist marxist, then you're a moron/troll.
Capitalism is not just an economic system it is also a social system. And that is what liberals and most capitalists dont understand, they dont understand the structures and conflicts that capitalism produces. They dont want to understand. They know that they can be rich by making others work for them in capitalism, that is what they know.

Of course you can be a marxist and support capitalism if it is in your interest. I am not suggesting that there are many capitalists that are marxists....
Marxism is no more than an tool for analysis. You can agree with Marx about what capitalism is and how it works, but still exploit the system for your own self-interest. If you are a socialist you cant support capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Holy fucking shit. Listen, guys, you can't oppose Liberals if you are coming from a Paulite standpoint. That makes you pretty much a full blown reactionary.

We fucking hate Liberals, yes. But our reasons for doing such are 100% contradictory to the reasons given by Ronny Mouse and his legion of fuckheads.

[NewLeft]

Holy fucking shit. Listen, guys, you can't oppose Liberals if you are coming from a Paulite standpoint. That makes you pretty much a full blown reactionary.

We fucking hate Liberals, yes. But our reasons for doing such are 100% contradictory to the reasons given by Ronny Mouse and his legion of fuckheads.

Speak for yourself, Ron Paul revolution!1! :D Finish off the socialist demon, Paul!


I'm not responding to you anymore, your comments are absolutely laughable, and if you think you can be a pro-capitalist marxist, then you're a moron/troll.

Or Hitchens.

[Luís Henrique]

Why the hell are there two threads on this idiot?

First, because while it is not likely, there is a remote possibility that Paul can win the Republican nomination, which means there is an even smaller possibility that Paul may be the next president of the most important capitalist country in the world.

Second, because even if he isn't nominated, he may well split up the Republican Party and put an end on the Republican/Democrat political dominance in the US.

Third, because he certainly has a wide constituency, and more importantly, a motivated constituency (something, let's remember, that we have not and are very far from having in the United States).

So, while we probably shouldn't be asking whether he is friend or foe, we definitely should have threads on him. Either that, or threads on the ostrichist art of burying our heads in the sand.

Luís Henrique

[Veovis]

Judging by the amount of YouTube comments in his favour, Ron Paul will win by 72% of the votes.

Too bad for him the great majority of those commentators are probably under 18 and can't vote.

[Tovarisch]

Ron Paul? I hate that guy. I can't see why any self-respecting left-winger would ever vote for him

[Luís Henrique]

Too bad for him the great majority of those commentators are probably under 18 and can't vote.

This is another worrysome thing about Paul. Four years ago, Paul had 10% of the vote in Iowa caucuses; last Tuesday, he made 21%. And among voters under 24, he had not just a plurality, but an actual majority. Probably this is even higher regarding people under 18 - and while they can't vote now, they will be able to vote in 2016. So, far from being to bad for him, this actual signs a promising future for him (or for his movement, for it seems he is too old to profit from that four years in the future).

(For the records, four years ago Paul won 8% of the vote in New Hampshire primaries. He is now polled at 24% there - so while he doubled in Iowa, which is a rural state, he is likely to triple in NH, in the urban East Coast.)

Luís Henrique

[NewLeft]

This is another worrysome thing about Paul. Four years ago, Paul had 10% of the vote in Iowa caucuses; last Tuesday, he made 21%. And among voters under 24, he had not just a plurality, but an actual majority. Probably this is even higher regarding people under 18 - and while they can't vote now, they will be able to vote in 2016. So, far from being to bad for him, this actual signs a promising future for him (or for his movement, for it seems he is too old to profit from that four years in the future).

(For the records, four years ago Paul won 8% of the vote in New Hampshire primaries. He is now polled at 24% there - so while he doubled in Iowa, which is a rural state, he is likely to triple in NH, in the urban East Coast.)

Luís Henrique

And why are they voting for Paul? cause they love that weed? hate the wars?

[Prometeo liberado]

I should have said, there's obviously a gap between Paul's rhetoric and reality, he's a politician after all. Didn't he get caught out using federal subsidies to spend on different building projects in his district or something like that? lul

I don't see it as a gap. He righteously believes in what he is saying. He knows that it does work for him and those like him. Though the window dressing he puts on it may convince many that he has their best interest at heart because so many people simply want any change. The middle class assumes that whenever a politician uses phrases like "less government control" and "Federal Reserve" then said politician can make it all better, fuck the details.

[Seth]

Foe. He's a paleoconservative/libertarian and probably a racist (he's done pretty poorly at hiding it). His appeal is among certain parts of the petit-bourgeoisie and students who are disgruntled at the economic elite but due to their libertarianism see statism as the chief problem. He's a nutter and the ruling class won't let him near the reins of power.

[Ocean Seal]

We're communists our friends are the workers and peasants not doctors turned congressmen who follow Misean economics, and want a government small enough to fit inside a woman's uterus.

[Ostrinski]

This is another worrysome thing about Paul. Four years ago, Paul had 10% of the vote in Iowa caucuses; last Tuesday, he made 21%. And among voters under 24, he had not just a plurality, but an actual majority. Probably this is even higher regarding people under 18 - and while they can't vote now, they will be able to vote in 2016. So, far from being to bad for him, this actual signs a promising future for him (or for his movement, for it seems he is too old to profit from that four years in the future).

(For the records, four years ago Paul won 8% of the vote in New Hampshire primaries. He is now polled at 24% there - so while he doubled in Iowa, which is a rural state, he is likely to triple in NH, in the urban East Coast.)

Luís HenriqueDidn't he say he wasn't going to run again if he loses this election? I could be wrong.

[Ostrinski]

And why are they voting for Paul? cause they love that weed? hate the wars?I love weed, hate wars, and sure as fuckness am not voting for Paul.

[A Marxist Historian]

First, because while it is not likely, there is a remote possibility that Paul can win the Republican nomination, which means there is an even smaller possibility that Paul may be the next president of the most important capitalist country in the world.

Second, because even if he isn't nominated, he may well split up the Republican Party and put an end on the Republican/Democrat political dominance in the US.

Third, because he certainly has a wide constituency, and more importantly, a motivated constituency (something, let's remember, that we have not and are very far from having in the United States).

So, while we probably shouldn't be asking whether he is friend or foe, we definitely should have threads on him. Either that, or threads on the ostrichist art of burying our heads in the sand.

Luís Henrique

There is not even the remotest possibility he can win the Republican nomination.

However, given the disgust of the average Republican for Romney, and the rapid collapse of all the other alternatives to him, he is getting some of the anybody-but-Romney vote in the primaries.

And as his vote tolls go up, he is increasingly difficult to distinguish from any of the other Republican candidates, except on not wanting to go to war with Iran--which certainly is the closet position of most of the American capitalist class.

If he somehow got nominated, which is almost inconceivable, maybe if Romney was struck by lightning, he would go through an instant transformation and would become indistinguishable from any other Republican--a path he is following already.

-M.H.-

[Comrade B]

From what I have seen, the main left people siding with Ron Paul are stoners who first argue his weed stance and then his anti war stance
and the weed argument they make isnt really a political one... more of just the "dude, he will legalize weed" argument, which I doubt he would anyway.
Weed is fun... and the drug war is a fucking mess ruining a lot of ordinary people's lives, but it has evolved beyond just legalizing drugs. There are definitely some issues that rank above getting high for me

[tanklv]

Idiot.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. His statements about "anti-war" and maybe some other things might cooincidentally be OK, but he's a racist, homophobic, mysoginistic charlitan.

BTW - he's a 'LIBERTARIAN" which is NOT a "LIBERAL" - anything but...the two are about as far apart as conservatives/conservativism is to liberals/liberalsim...

[RadioRaheem84]

Why are you so defensive about liberalism?

[Olentzero]

Foe. Racist, homphobic, free-market-worshipping foe.

Next question.

[Ostrinski]

Idiot.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. His statements about "anti-war" and maybe some other things might cooincidentally be OK, but he's a racist, homophobic, mysoginistic charlitan.

BTW - he's a 'LIBERTARIAN" which is NOT a "LIBERAL" - anything but...the two are about as far apart as conservatives/conservativism is to liberals/liberalsim...Wrong. They have the same etymology and ideological origins. Libertarians are actually the most radical liberals because they believe in the most conservative form of liberalism, classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government), constitutionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalism), rule of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law), due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process), and liberty of individuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_liberty) including freedom of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion), speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech), press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press), assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly), and free markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_markets).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#cite_note-google.com-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#cite_note-1)


lassical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) and the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution) and urbanization.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#cite_note-2) Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Say), Thomas Malthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus) and David Ricardo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#cite_note-3) It drew on the economics of Adam Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) and on a belief in natural law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), and progress.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Neither. We should consider him a strategical ally.

[kurr]

Man, people are really going full retard for this guy. He has the charisma of a dead fish. He is like if George Wallace and Pat Buchanan had a love child together. Gross.

[Ocean Seal]

Neither. We should consider him a strategical ally.
What's your strategy, friend?

[Decolonize The Left]

Neither. We should consider him a strategical ally.

uZjKUN5QI0s

- August

[seventeethdecember2016]

What's your strategy, friend?
He will destabilize the US, which will open a narrow hole for a civil war, coup, or revolution.
The most likely of these cases is that the US's economy plummets.