Proud to be a Paultard!

[Cold]

Hi everyone. I am a conservative and a Ron Paul supporter. I would like to lay down a few of my political beliefs and it would be nice if you could state my why you disagree/agree with them (Although I am sure you will disagree with most of them). I am interested to hear the thoughts and arguments from the other side of the fence :)

1. An individual should be in control of their own personal wealth. The individual can spend the money better then the government.

2. The borders of the United States should be secured immediately. Illegal immigrants must not be granted citizenship, including no welfare and no birthright citizenship.

3. The individual should be able to choose where to eat, work, live and have complete freedom over the choices they make in life. The individual should be able to control their own destiny, not the government.

4. A person should receive pay based on the fruits of their own labor. If a person provides a better service or product then someone else, then naturally they will receive a greater income.

5. I do not see everybody as equal. I judge each and every person on an individual basis, not on a group basis.

6. The government has little place in an individuals life. I agree that some social services are needed but the influence the government has over a country should be as limited as possible.

7. I believe every person has the right to health care. Health care should be socialized.

8. I am completely against a North American Union. The national sovereignty and identity of a country must be protected. I am against foreign body's such as the United Nations.

9. I am against the war in Iraq and the ideology of policing the world.

10. Each person has the right to bear arms.

Thank you.

[RedAnarchist]

Hi and welcome. Well, I can't answer on behalf of the entire revolutionary left, but heres my opinion -


1. An individual should be in control of their own personal wealth. The individual can spend the money better then the government.

Why do we need either money or government? If humans work as a community we need no laws or currency.



2. The borders of the United States should be secured immediately. Illegal immigrants must not be granted citizenship, including no welfare and no birthright citizenship.

This is a bit hypocritical, unless you're of Native American (indigenous) or African American (kidnapped and enslaved) ancestry.



3. The individual should be able to choose where to eat, work, live and have complete freedom over the choices they make in life. The individual should be able to control their own destiny, not the government.

Fine, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. Of course, we disagree when it comes to the economy in regards to this.


4. A person should receive pay based on the fruits of their own labor. If a person provides a better service or product then someone else, then naturally they will receive a greater income.

That wouldn't happen under capitalism, because workers have to work longer than they actually get paid for in order to give their bosses some profit. The resources they use are also teh labour of workers, so why not cut out the bosses and the money?



5. I do not see everybody as equal. I judge each and every person on an individual basis, not on a group basis.

So, you don't generalise? Yet you think no illegal immigrants should be given any help whatsoever?



6. The government has little place in an individuals life. I agree that some social services are needed but the influence the government has over a country should be as limited as possible.

I'm an anarchist, so I don't believe in government anyway.



7. I believe every person has the right to health care. Health care should be socialized.

Yes, especially in an anarchist society.



8. I am completely against a North American Union. The national sovereignty and identity of a country must be protected. I am against foreign body's such as the United Nations.

I'm against all nations and nationalities. I consider humans to be humans and not mere collections owned by ruling classes.



9. I am against the war in Iraq and the ideology of policing the world.

As I am. The American government should be spending its money on helpings its citizens, not murdering another country's.



10. Each person has the right to bear arms.

I agree. If the only people who had guns were soldiers and cops, the working class would be in serious trouble.

[Robespierre2.0]

First of all, welcome to Revleft!


1. An individual should be in control of their own personal wealth. The individual can spend the money better then the government.

I assume this is an attack on taxation and government-funded projects. From your point of view, the government is wasting people's money on stuff that really doesn't benefit them, such as imperialist wars and the sort. However, do you realize the necessity for state-funded education, roads, and the like?

I think libertarians have a very Americentric view of government- Not every government is run like the U.S.'. Also, we, as Marxists, believe that government is a tool of the ruling class. The money that is taken from you through taxes will be used in a way that benefits the capitalists, rather than society as a whole. The common person has little say in how government funds are used in a capitalist country.

We aim to eliminate the capitalist class and establish the proletariat as the ruling class of society. Under this system, you will have a say in how government funds are utilized, thus, you in fact exercise more control over the fruits of your labor than in capitalist society.


2. The borders of the United States should be secured immediately. Illegal immigrants must not be granted citizenship, including no welfare and no birthright citizenship.

Seeing as how I'm for the dissolution of the United States, and the eventual end of nations in general, I disagree with you here. Also, this attitude towards immigrants seems xenophobic.


3. The individual should be able to choose where to eat, work, live and have complete freedom over the choices they make in life. The individual should be able to control their own destiny, not the government.

This statement doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Under laissez-faire capitalism, workers have to settle for whatever work they can get, under whatever degrading conditions the boss sets, or face starvation. Children of the upper class often are sent to better schools and basically ensured a decent life. In our society, freedom hinges only on how much money you have at your disposal.


4. A person should receive pay based on the fruits of their own labor. If a person provides a better service or product then someone else, then naturally they will receive a greater income.

This doesn't sound very capitalist either. People receiving pay based on the fruits of their labor? Compare that to the following Marx + Lenin quotes-
"From each according to their ability, to teach according to their deeds"
"He who does not work, shall not eat"
It is the capitalists who receive money from the fruits of their employers' labor.
It is a common assumption that socialism is the abolition of differences in wage. That is not true. People are still paid according to how difficult or how much expertise their work requires. The difference is that the value of their labor doesn't go into the pockets of some rich capitalist- it is used for the benefit of that worker, and society as a whole.

I've got to go to class, but I'll continue this later. You can tell we're not big fans of Ron Paul around here, though.

[apathy maybe]

7 out of 10 racist ignorant scum fuckers agree, Ron Paul for president.
http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-388512.html

Ron Paul is a reject.

[which doctor]

I must say that I have been very impressed with all the support that Ron Paul has managed to gain on the behalf of his supporters. He went from being virtually unknown to beating Giuliani in some caucuses. Not that I agree with any of his policies though...

[Cold]

Hi and welcome. Well, I can't answer on behalf of the entire revolutionary left, but heres my opinion -



Why do we need either money or government? If humans work as a community we need no laws or currency.

I am for very limited and small government. I believe some form of government is necessary to protect and serve society. Money is an exchange unit and has value. If you do not believe in the value of the dollar/pound/euro or whatever it may be, you have the choice to convert your earnings to gold, silver or another valuable commodity.

Personally, I do not have faith in the dollar because it is not backed by anything. It is my opinion that we should go back to the gold standard.


This is a bit hypocritical, unless you're of Native American (indigenous) or African American (kidnapped and enslaved) ancestry.You are making a judgment based on race. I do not believe in racism. Nobody should be judged because of their race.



Fine, so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. Of course, we disagree when it comes to the economy in regards to this.I agree here.


That wouldn't happen under capitalism, because workers have to work longer than they actually get paid for in order to give their bosses some profit. The resources they use are also teh labour of workers, so why not cut out the bosses and the money?In a free market society, you have a choice. If you think your pay is not adequate, you can leave your employment. Nobody is stopping you. Under Communism, you do not have that right. In a free market society, you have the choice to be your own boss.


So, you don't generalise? Yet you think no illegal immigrants should be given any help whatsoever? No, I do not generalize. If they want to come here, they can do so legally. It doesn't matter if you are white, black or yellow, people must respect our laws and our sovereignty. It applies to everyone wishing to live in the US.







I'm against all nations and nationalities. I consider humans to be humans and not mere collections owned by ruling classes.Every single person is unique. Every single nation is unique. That uniqueness should never be taken away. Culture has provided the world with a great deal.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hello and welcome. I hope you don't mind if I ask you questions in order to determine your reasons for being a conservative at the same time as I give my reasons for being a communist.


1. An individual should be in control of their own personal wealth. The individual can spend the money better then the government.
What counts as your own personal wealth? That is to say, what means of acquiring wealth do you deem acceptable? Is theft acceptable? Probably not. Yet capitalism and private property are based on theft and force. All objects are ultimately created from human labour plus natural resources. Therefore the ownership of an object rests on the ownership of labour (and we can all agree that you own your labour) and the ownership of natural resources. In turn, natural resources come from land, so their ownership is based on the ownership of land. And all the land on Earth was stolen at least once - sometimes many different times - in its history. All existing property is based on theft and force.

Likewise, capitalism is based on theft - the theft of surplus value from the workers. I will explain this further below, in response to point 4.


2. The borders of the United States should be secured immediately. Illegal immigrants must not be granted citizenship, including no welfare and no birthright citizenship.
Why? The difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant is that the illegal immigrant did not receive the permission of the US government to live in the United States. Why should people need the permission of the US government to live in the United States? I thought you were opposed to government intrusion into private life. Shouldn't you be free to choose where to live without having to ask governments for permission?


3. The individual should be able to choose where to eat, work, live and have complete freedom over the choices they make in life. The individual should be able to control their own destiny, not the government.
Agreed. But in order to control your destiny you need to control the forces that shape your life - you need a measure of control over the economy, over the means of production. That is what socialism and communism give you. Under capitalism, economic power is highly uneven, so that a few rich capitalists can more or less shape the lives of everyone else. Under socialism or communism, economic power is distributed equally, so that no one can oppress or exploit someone else.


4. A person should receive pay based on the fruits of their own labor.
Oh my, you sound like a socialist! Socialism is all about giving workers the full value of their labour.

Under capitalism, every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.


5. I do not see everybody as equal. I judge each and every person on an individual basis, not on a group basis.
Equal in what way? Are you talking about equality of rights, equality of merits, equality of access to the means of production (socialism), equality of political power (democracy), equality of worth as human beings, or what?

I believe that people have equal worth as human beings and that the happiness of each individual is equally valuable. From this stems my support for equality of rights, equality of access to the means of production, and equality of political power.


6. The government has little place in an individuals life. I agree that some social services are needed but the influence the government has over a country should be as limited as possible.
You disagree with Ron Paul on this one. He strongly believes that no social services are needed at all. Perhaps you are not aware how extreme he really is.

But in any case, what is the government anyway, and what counts as influence over your life? If the government is just an organization that represents the wishes of the people, you sound like you're saying people should live as separately as possible and not interact with each other very much (since the government can just be a means to allow people to interact over large distances).


7. I believe every person has the right to health care. Health care should be socialized.
Agreed. However, Ron Paul strongly disagrees. How do you reconcile your support for universal health care with your support for Ron Paul?


8. I am completely against a North American Union. The national sovereignty and identity of a country must be protected. I am against foreign body's such as the United Nations.
Why? What is so special about a country - particularly a young country like the United States where most people have immigrants among their grandparents or great-grandparents - that requires protecting from outside influences? Why should we divide humanity into more or less random groups, call them "nations," and insist that the people of each group conduct their affairs separately from everyone else?

I see no reason for national borders to exist, other than serving the interests of capitalism by diving workers, restricting their movement, and making wars possible.


9. I am against the war in Iraq and the ideology of policing the world.
Agreed. Imperialist wars should always be opposed.


10. Each person has the right to bear arms.
Agreed. We can't very well have a communist revolution if the people don't have any guns, can we?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Money is an exchange unit and has value. If you do not believe in the value of the dollar/pound/euro or whatever it may be, you have the choice to convert your earnings to gold, silver or another valuable commodity.

Personally, I do not have faith in the dollar because it is not backed by anything. It is my opinion that we should go back to the gold standard.
I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is, the value of money is always a matter of faith. Basically, a dollar is worth whatever most people think it is worth. This would be the case even if it was backed by gold, since the value of an exchange unit does not depend on the value of the paper or gold that the bills and coins are physically made of (or backed by). The value of an exchange unit is the value of the goods and services you can buy with that exchange unit. What the gold standard means is not that the value of the dollar is determined by the value of gold, but the reverse: the value of gold is determined by the value of the dollar (since people trade dollars far more often than they trade gold). In effect, you'd be replacing paper with gold, but the end result would be the same, since gold does not have any particularly special qualities that paper lacks. In fact, gold has a major disadvantage: unlike paper, it is rare, and therefore your monetary system can be thrown into complete chaos if large quantities of gold are found (or lost in a shipwreck for example).

The good news is, you can run an economy without money, or at least without money as we know it. Both socialism and communism aim to do that. Socialism involves an exchange unit with fixed value - a value that in my opinion should be pegged to labour time, so that one hour of the same work in the same job is always worth X units - and this exchange unit is used in transactions between the state and individuals. Communism involves no exchange unit at all.


In a free market society, you have a choice. If you think your pay is not adequate, you can leave your employment. Nobody is stopping you. Under Communism, you do not have that right. In a free market society, you have the choice to be your own boss.
Yes and no. Capitalism may allow you to do a lot of things in theory, but in practice your options are limited by the amount of money and property you own (since you need it to start a business or to take out a loan), by your education (which in turn depends a lot on your parents), by the place where you live and by the general conditions in the market.

Communism is more concerned with giving you the actual ability to do things, the wealth and resources you require in order to do what you want with your life. And it also allows you to make economic decisions by a democratic vote.


Every single person is unique. Every single nation is unique. That uniqueness should never be taken away. Culture has provided the world with a great deal.
Why do you need borders to defend the uniqueness of your culture? Don't people adopt your culture willingly?

[Raúl Duke]

Hi everyone. I am a conservative and a Ron Paul supporter. I would like to lay down a few of my political beliefs and it would be nice if you could state my why you disagree/agree with them (Although I am sure you will disagree with most of them). I am interested to hear the thoughts and arguments from the other side of the fence :)

1. An individual should be in control of their own personal wealth. The individual can spend the money better then the government.

2. The borders of the United States should be secured immediately. Illegal immigrants must not be granted citizenship, including no welfare and no birthright citizenship.

3. The individual should be able to choose where to eat, work, live and have complete freedom over the choices they make in life. The individual should be able to control their own destiny, not the government.

4. A person should receive pay based on the fruits of their own labor. If a person provides a better service or product then someone else, then naturally they will receive a greater income.

5. I do not see everybody as equal. I judge each and every person on an individual basis, not on a group basis.

6. The government has little place in an individuals life. I agree that some social services are needed but the influence the government has over a country should be as limited as possible.

7. I believe every person has the right to health care. Health care should be socialized.

8. I am completely against a North American Union. The national sovereignty and identity of a country must be protected. I am against foreign body's such as the United Nations.

9. I am against the war in Iraq and the ideology of policing the world.

10. Each person has the right to bear arms.

Thank you.

1. If you are a wage-laborer...you are not in control of your "source of wealth" (labor). The capitalist decides how you work, when, and how much....if not you starve (or live in a low level of poverty). The only way you can avoid this is if you're self-employed, work in a collective (worker run company..etc), or are a capitalist (employer, etc)

2. Why not? Are people illegal? Is there anything natural, objective about borders? About immigrants...are we native Americans (see the play in words...the real people of these lands we have marginalized to reservations!)? Most of our families are from immigrants. You might say the difference is that they came here legally but back than immigration was much easier and cheaper.

3.No such luck. Even if the government let you alone...there's always the corporation willing to order you. Not everyone can choose their job...what if it's not available? What if they reject you?

4. Reminds me of mutualism. You should look up into the individualist anarchists (specifically the American ones, like Ben Tucker. Also Proudhon). In capitalism this is impossible unless you are self-employed or part of a collective.

5.hmm... Equal in what sense? I suppose we can agree that they're all human.

6....ok....whatever. It depends on what you think is important and what isn't. Unemployment security social programs are important, since based on my knowledge of economics, the economy/market does not want everyone to be employed (there's such a thing as a natural unemployment rate).

7.ok

8. What's so important about the identity of a country (compared to many things)? Especially in a country that doesn't have a exact national identity since it's made of immigrants' decendents. Also, these organizations don't do much against our soveriegnity or identity. They are very weak and require country's participation.

9.Thats good. Very Good.

10. Thats fine.

You're welcome.

[which doctor]

In a free market society, you have a choice. If you think your pay is not adequate, you can leave your employment. Nobody is stopping you. Under Communism, you do not have that right. In a free market society, you have the choice to be your own boss.
Actually, we dont have a choice. What's stopping us are the lack of higher paying jobs and the reality that if we quit our job to look for a new one we will miss a bill or crawl further into debt. People aren't the only things that are capable of using force, there are also material conditions.

[Cold]

First of all, welcome to Revleft!

Thank you very much for the welcome.


I assume this is an attack on taxation and government-funded projects. From your point of view, the government is wasting people's money on stuff that really doesn't benefit them, such as imperialist wars and the sort. However, do you realize the necessity for state-funded education, roads, and the like? Ron Paul wants to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers (the working class) can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

As you can see here with Ron Paul's policy on education, the working class would have a very large influence over education which definitely isn't a bad thing.



I think libertarians have a very Americentric view of government- Not every government is run like the U.S.'. Also, we, as Marxists, believe that government is a tool of the ruling class. The money that is taken from you through taxes will be used in a way that benefits the capitalists, rather than society as a whole.

The common person has little say in how government funds are used in a capitalist country.
Ron Paul wishes to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Income tax and the Inflation tax amongst others. Lower taxes benefit all Americans by increasing economic growth and encouraging wealth creation.

We do not cost the government money. The government costs us money.




We aim to eliminate the capitalist class and establish the proletariat as the ruling class of society. Under this system, you will have a say in how government funds are utilized, thus, you in fact exercise more control over the fruits of your labor than in capitalist society.Under Ron Paul the government would be drastically reduced and it's funding cut dramatically. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Under Ron Paul, you would be in control over that money - not the government.


Seeing as how I'm for the dissolution of the United States, and the eventual end of nations in general, I disagree with you here. Also, this attitude towards immigrants seems xenophobic.I just wish to retain our identity as a sovereign nation. As I stated earlier "Every single person is unique. Every single nation is unique. That uniqueness should never be taken away."


This statement doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Under laissez-faire capitalism, workers have to settle for whatever work they can get, under whatever degrading conditions the boss sets, or face starvation. Children of the upper class often are sent to better schools and basically ensured a decent life. In our society, freedom hinges only on how much money you have at your disposal.
Degrading conditions? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there laws and unions in place to protect an individual? America is the land of opportunities and there are limitless possibilities, if you are willing to work hard enough.


This doesn't sound very capitalist either. People receiving pay based on the fruits of their labor? Compare that to the following Marx + Lenin quotes-
"From each according to their ability, to teach according to their deeds"
"He who does not work, shall not eat"
It is the capitalists who receive money from the fruits of their employers' labor.
It is a common assumption that socialism is the abolition of differences in wage. That is not true. People are still paid according to how difficult or how much expertise their work requires. The difference is that the value of their labor doesn't go into the pockets of some rich capitalist- it is used for the benefit of that worker, and society as a whole.
Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare.

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrum's. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names – Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

[Red October]

Let's cage him

[R_P_A_S]

Let's cage him

LMAO! enough of this Ron Paul circus the guy is an elf. he looks like an elf. and he's a loser. lets move on! we got bigger fish to fry. next

[Dr Mindbender]

...feeding time for the restrictaconda, I think.

[Faux Real]

LMAO! enough of this Ron Paul circus the guy is an elf. he looks like an elf. and he's a loser. lets move on! we got bigger fish to fry. next
That's what they said about Kucinich. :p


You are making a judgment based on race. I do not believe in racism. Nobody should be judged because of their race.
That isn't based on race. He's calling European settlers and colonizers illegal immigrants who used slave labor as a means to build up their wealth at the expense and lives of the indigenous and slaves.

My problem with the US brand of "libertarianism" is this:

Calling for limited yet advocating a deregulated free market economy would never work in favor of anyone but the capitalists, because the State encompasses more than government. Politics includes all aspects of power relations, and the State would still be in control of the bourgeoisie even if they were not in government positions. So rather than your life being decided by the government it would be shaped by private institutions. It's simply replacing the former ruling class with a new one that is just as neglectful towards the working class as the previous government, but even less accountable.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes
So schools in rich neighborhoods will have enough money to buy anything they want while schools in working class areas will barely get enough tax money to fix holes in the roof or turn the heat on in winter? Great plan. :rolleyes:

Schools should not be funded by local taxes because that means that the quality of your education depends on the income of the people who happen to live around you.

Ron Paul wishes to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Income tax and the Inflation tax amongst others. Lower taxes benefit all Americans by increasing economic growth and encouraging wealth creation.
Lower taxes do not increase economic growth. Quite the contrary. A market economy is driven by consumption, and lower taxes encourage savings at the expense of consumption.

Also, the Federal Reserve did not invent inflation. Inflation simply means the expansion of the money supply while production remains constant. Under the gold standard, the money supply depends on the amount of gold available, so every time more gold enters the American economy, the money supply expands and you get inflation.

Under Ron Paul the government would be drastically reduced and it's funding cut dramatically. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest.
No it doesn't. Government spending can increase consumption and thereby stimulate the economy. The greatest economic boom in the history of the Western world - the post-WW2 boom - was driven by government spending.

I just wish to retain our identity as a sovereign nation. As I stated earlier "Every single person is unique. Every single nation is unique. That uniqueness should never be taken away."
Why do you need borders to protect your uniqueness? And why exactly do you care what happens to the nation if you're such an individualist? Do nations have rights? I thought you believed that only individuals had rights.


Degrading conditions? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there laws and unions in place to protect an individual? America is the land of opportunities and there are limitless possibilities, if you are willing to work hard enough.
Work is not a magic wand and there are no limitless possibilities in America. It has more poverty and deprivation than any other Western country.

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare.
Let's not argue over semantics. "Capitalism" is just a word. We tend to use the word "capitalism" to refer to the system that currently exists in the world. You use it to refer to a (slightly) different system as outlined above. That's fine.

I would like to point out, however, that the system you describe was in place in the 19th century. Are you familiar with the history and living conditions of the 19th century? Do you realize that socialism was originally born precisely in order to fight the kind of system you support?

I'll take present day capitalism over your reactionary laissez-faire hell hole any day.

And one final reality check: You do realize that Ron Paul is going to lose miserably, right?

[MT5678]

Every single nation is unique.

Wait, I thought libertarians wanted a world state in which, according to them, workers could freely go around and "contract their labor"? This is why many want free immigration.

Concerning immigration, I think that (ready for a joke?) immigrants are vicious things that threaten our ways of life and cause criminality and subvert the government and screw over all of us.
(/end joke)


THE REAL IMMIGRANTS ARE THE CORPORATIONS! They can cross whatever borders they choose. So why are workers restricted by artificial lines in the sand?


7. I believe every person has the right to health care. Health care should be socialized

Glad we agree on something. But does Ron Paul or the libertarian movement agree with this?

[Dros]

Hi everyone. I am a conservative and a Ron Paul supporter. I would like to lay down a few of my political beliefs and it would be nice if you could state my why you disagree/agree with them (Although I am sure you will disagree with most of them). I am interested to hear the thoughts and arguments from the other side of the fence :)

You are about to get fead to the restrictaconda. PS: in case you did not already know, Ron Paul is a Nazi. If you don't care, you won't have any friends here.


1. An individual should be in control of their own personal wealth. The individual can spend the money better then the government.

The proletariat's source of wealth is their labor. Under capitalism, the proletariat is forced to sell this to the exploiter class at a price lower then the value of what they generate. This is a no-no.


2. The borders of the United States should be secured immediately. Illegal immigrants must not be granted citizenship, including no welfare and no birthright citizenship.

No. Workers have no country. Nationalism is a dangerous and petty bourgeois ideology. And whatever happened to defending the constitution?


3. The individual should be able to choose where to eat, work, live and have complete freedom over the choices they make in life. The individual should be able to control their own destiny, not the government

Sure. The only way for this to happen in reality is through socialism and then communism.


4. A person should receive pay based on the fruits of their own labor. If a person provides a better service or product then someone else, then naturally they will receive a greater income.

A person should not recieve pay. The commodity mode of exchanging labor must be abolished.


5. I do not see everybody as equal. I judge each and every person on an individual basis, not on a group basis.

Do you believe that everyone should be treated equally in the "eyes of the law?" That certainly doesn't happen under capitalism and that is certainly enshrined in your precious constitution.


6. The government has little place in an individuals life. I agree that some social services are needed but the influence the government has over a country should be as limited as possible.

Ultimately, we should strive for a stateless society so I guess I agree in a limited sence.


7. I believe every person has the right to health care. Health care should be socialized.

I agree.


8. I am completely against a North American Union. The national sovereignty and identity of a country must be protected. I am against foreign body's such as the United Nations.

I support proletarian internationalism. So no I disagree. I support a global community of freely associating human beings.


9. I am against the war in Iraq and the ideology of policing the world.

Cool.


10. Each person has the right to bear arms.

Until such time as weapons become unnecessary and are no longer produced then yes.

[Dros]

[SIZE=2]Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare.

Capitalism is the mode of production that is charecterized by private ownership of the means of production by a Bourgeoisie exploiter ruling class and production is carried out by the proletariat, an exploited, oppressed class. Historically, it emerged out of the feudal mode of production starting late in the sixteenth century (very earliest and arguable) and continued to develop right up until the present. Capitalism as you are describing it is the definition used by Smith and others (I think?). But the way the term is defined by Marxist sources, and the way the term is defined colloquially, is very different (as described above).

[RedAnarchist]

Whats with the word "Paultard"? Are they saying that people who support Paul are mentally challenged? Or are they just insulting the mentally challenged?

[MT5678]

I don't know. But anyways, if the OP is a real Paultard, then I don't see much libertarian about Paul. Libertarians want a world-state like us (only we would have the world state disappear) in which workers go around prostituting themselves. The OP favors border protection.

[Dean]

I don't know. But anyways, if the OP is a real Paultard, then I don't see much libertarian about Paul. Libertarians want a world-state like us (only we would have the world state disappear) in which workers go around prostituting themselves. The OP favors border protection.

Sounds just like the libertarian bullshit to me. Inconsistant, capitalist, xenophobic.

[MT5678]

You know, Dean, you're correct. What libertarians don't understand is that capitalism needs an intrusive state to help the system stay with nonsense like patriotism and and jingoism to fool the workers. Oh, and the state gives subsidies and maintains protectionism, too. Any smart bourgeois wants the state. Libertarianism so will never occur.

[Dean]

You know, Dean, you're correct. What libertarians don't understand is that capitalism needs an intrusive state to help the system stay with nonsense like patriotism and and jingoism to fool the workers. Oh, and the state gives subsidies and maintains protectionism, too. Any smart bourgeois wants the state. Libertarianism so will never occur.

I'm just speaking from ym experience. They talk of no government, but they are very U.S.-centric and never make a peep about immigrant rights. I've never once heard one of them say "no human being is illegal" or anything like that. Their philosophy is very suspicious, considering that they clainm to focus on human liberty and dignity but all their anger is directed at welfare, whereas the disgustingly huge military budget is often justified by them. There is a huge debate in their camp about the Iraq war - about half support it.

Really, they're nothign more than shitty conservatices who don't give a fuck about humanity, anything to make them a dollar is fine by them.

[Robert]

Dean, I'm no Libertarian, but you are flatly wrong. This is from the party's platform:

We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics. We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

[Dean]

Dean, I'm no Libertarian, but you are flatly wrong. This is from the party's platform:

We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics. We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

And most libertarians I have spoken to either don't agree, or simply don't give a damn. There is a reason why they spend their time *****ing about taxes rather than immigration reform. They simply don't care; it doesn't make them money.

[Robert]

most libertarians I have spoken to either don't agree, or simply don't give a damn.

Then they're not Libertarians, are they?

[Orange Juche]

Guh I fucking hate Ron Paul!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty14OjBKpb4

[SamiBTX]

The borders of the United States should be secured immediately. Illegal immigrants must not be granted citizenship, including no welfare and no birthright citizenship.



The Mexicans, Cubans, Hondurans & etc. have much more true nativity
than whites here do. They have just as much right to live here as we do.
The Europeans took North America by force & then ***** when the Natives want to live on it.

I've sat down & listened to Ron Paul & he's the kind of guy that some things he says I dead-on agree with & other things & just want to SMACK him!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Dean, I'm no Libertarian, but you are flatly wrong. This is from the party's platform:
<snip>
There are several different factions within the LP; the platform merely reflects the views of the faction that currently has the upper hand.

[Dean]

Then they're not Libertarians, are they?

A lot of them are members of the party. The rest are little-L libertarians. They are self-proclaimed libertarians who tow most of the same line that the rest of the morons do.

[Lenin II]

Can someone tell me why this guy is not restricted?

An individual should be in control of their own personal wealth. The individual can spend the money better then the government.
And what happens to those individuals that need government assistance or that are not paid the full value of their labor? What happens to social classes and the three billion people who are currently living on two dollars a day?

The borders of the United States should be secured immediately. Illegal immigrants must not be granted citizenship, including no welfare and no birthright citizenship.
Jesus, I’m at a loss as to what one-liner to use.
VIVA U.S. APARTHEID!
Give me your tired, your hungry, your poor so long as they have a paper saying they can pick oranges for me….
I’m for limited government so long as we regulate the brown people.

The individual should be able to choose where to eat, work, live and have complete freedom over the choices they make in life. The individual should be able to control their own destiny, not the government.
And instead of the government, you’ll let private business control them.

A person should receive pay based on the fruits of their own labor. If a person provides a better service or product then someone else, then naturally they will receive a greater income.
I’ll leave debunking this to others.

I do not see everybody as equal. I judge each and every person on an individual basis, not on a group basis.
Is this a political belief? I thought it was common sense. Anyway, this sort of view is important when thinking about the topics of prejudice or racism, however it’s also essential to be able to recognize individuals from the same class of people, particularly that which works and that which rules, and be able to pinpoint exactly WHOSE class interests they are looking after.

The government has little place in an individuals life. I agree that some social services are needed but the influence the government has over a country should be as limited as possible.
And what about the influence exerted by private industry? The concept of the “state” is not limited to the actual government. Since libertarians are basically bourgeoisie anarcho-capitalists, they should realize that all forms of bourgeoisie authority, especially private industry and the bourgeoisie state that protects it, are criminal and exploitive in nature.

I believe every person has the right to health care. Health care should be socialized.
Well, guess what? That’s not going to happen under Ron Paul, or any capitalist for that matter, and sure as fuck not a libertarian or republican, who are against socialized ANYTHING.

I am completely against a North American Union. The national sovereignty and identity of a country must be protected. I am against foreign body's such as the United Nations.
Solidarity is weakness! Whoo!

I am against the war in Iraq and the ideology of policing the world.
Good.

Each person has the right to bear arms.
Agreed, though for me it’s because I want citizens armed to take down the government. For you, you probably need guns in case the big, bad government tries to take your guns away, which is quite circular thinking.

You are making a judgment based on race. I do not believe in racism. Nobody should be judged because of their race.
But judging by nationality – :thumbup:


Every single person is unique. Every single nation is unique. That uniqueness should never be taken away. Culture has provided the world with a great deal.
National borders are not a part of “culture.” Culture is a set of behaviors and norms by which people choose to live by. Borders are arbitrary lines traced by dead men on inaccurate compass-created maps hundreds or thousands of years ago as a result of imperialist wars.