Fine, be against imperialism and intervention This is no reason to be for unregulated corporate capitalism which frankly often leads to foreign wars. Some corporations make direct money off of wars, some don't. That is why you see Rand Paul the son, deemphasizing the anti-interventionism angle. You may be motivated by idealism, and maybe even Dr. Ron Paul, but the Kochs and other heavy funders of libertarianism and its think tanks,from which ideology Ron Paul gains, are also motivated by cold hard cash and take advantage of your idealism -- Similarly as to how the military industrial complex takes advantage of the patriotism and love of country and neighborhoold of working class recruits to our endless wars. You still need to explain how it is that both Ron Paul and the Kochs proclaim that they are libertarians and both have run at time under the banner of the "Libertarian Party". Are they both just misguided? As far as direct funding of Ron Paul's recent campaigns by the Kochs I would not be surprised. The anti-regulation, effectively pro- pollution stand of the Ron Paul helps them make money. It is sort of like the TX GOP giving a few bucks to the TX Green Party. They get for bang for the buck in taking away Dem voters than just a few tens of thousands more of GOP spending
Compared to whom. There are two basic tenets of idealism and you need to decide which side you are on (and compromise from there) 1. The empathetic view that man is a part of greater civilization, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (Marx and Jesus) 2. Laissez-faire, rational egoism where the individual is a stand alone entity in a Darwinian competition against the rest of mankind. (the happy-go-lucky Rand, Nietzsche, Austrian School) But Paul is just a mixed up old fool who doesn't even understand, or won't articulate the doomsday scenarios of his own 'pure' idealism. He couldn't even give an answer to the "uninsured man steps out in front of a bus ... let him die or the government pays to cure him" question.
Jo Mama: Glynch hit on a lot of what I am going to say, but this was a good post so I think I owe you my own response. Two very important caveats – a “fair level playing field free of government intervention” is completely impossible... without regulatory intervention. Libertarians are unusually naïve about this and it’s absolutely mind-boggling. One only needs to look back to pre-regulation historical periods to easily prove this assertion – witness the roaring 20s or early industrialized England. Business is wholly incapable of regulating itself and will go to any level to increase profit. Child labor, human trafficking, offshoring, environmental disasters – these are the absolute results of Milton Freidman’s business model in action. Merit is not just concerned with business acumen, the “moral” companies will be at a complete disadvantage (monetarily) and accordingly disappear. The lowest common denominator – profit – will drive us all back to feudalism. Libertarian’s often argue that this inherent flaw can be corrected or solved with a strongly enforced property code and the judicial system. Unfortunately, this requires that one suspend rationality inasmuch as it pretends these systems won’t be coerced and run by the mega-rich and/or corporate power. The US, even after the great depression and WWII destroyed what was left of the free market, is still chock-full of stories that reveal both corporate influence over judicial proceedings and a separate justice for those rich-enough to afford it. It also seems a backward step as it removes preemptive impediments to damaging activities. Why would someone not want to ban releasing H2S into the environment in mass quantities before it kills lots of people? Is it possible that this can be rectified by de-centralizing government (i.e., remove DC’s influence such that federally-issued corporate-written laws and regulations are impossible)? Possibly, but it seems again to place a great deal of faith in a system and a society with proven and undeniable flaws. Not too long ago I posted an article about how companies were now investing thousands of dollars in campaigns at extremely small scales - towns of 10,000 people are already under the glare of corporate influence. Decentralization may make it more cumbersome, but the same mechanism inherently exists nonetheless. Secondly, I know many Ron Paul supporters with your particular brand of disinterest or lack of concern regarding Pauls’ domestic agenda. A good friend of mine who sends me Ron Paul emails and has donated etc. stated it best in a recent email: That’s fine and all, and certainly one can very easily argue that Paul’s ability to push through massive domestic policy alterations will be limited by congress, but plainly ignoring these policy goals is irresponsible. Even if Paul as president is stymied by congress, he has a huge ability to disrupt these programs and/or veto them into pseudo-oblivion. To put it bluntly, Ron Paul supporters are all too willing to ignore these facets of Paul’s ideology – and who can blame them? They’re unpopular and downright objectivist – Paul hosed himself at the debates on this very point and it’s no surprise at all. Yet you and other Paul supporters change the subject to decry current corruption or focus on the foreign policy goals because there’s not much to stand on in regards to Paul’s domestic scheme. He wants to entirely remove the government from providing services to the citizenry. That’s not libertarian – that’s a forced plutarchy. Again, while I may understand your point of view (albeit that the mechanism under-which “moderate libertarianism” will function is avoided like the plague by most any claimed supporter) you are once more ignoring that Paul is very much in favor of massive deregulation. Does Paul want to keep “some” regulation too? Or does he operate a la his son, who votes against regulation “on principle”? It would certainly appear to be the latter, and that should not be ignored. That would be like someone ignoring Obama’s stated plan to overhaul healthcare when deciding to vote for him in 2008. No argument, but how will Paul’s outlook (see above) aid in rectifying this? One can argue (and you do, below) that our current scheme is broken inasmuch as corporate influence has supplanted the citizen's voice. But how does Paul's deregulated plan limit this? If anything it strengthens it. More on this later. Same response. I agree that the current situation has flaws. What I don’t agree with is that Ron Paul’s stated plans represent a solution. They represent an alteration that may fix certain problems as a side benefit (the deficit), but they absolutely do not represent a win-win for the 99%. They represent a very unsettling game of policy Russian roulette for those depending on the government to supply basic necessities like water, education, roads etc. Bad regulation exists - but the solution is better regulation. The nuclear option is, well, excessive...it'll cause more problems. And this is where the Ron Paul argument really suffers. The free market sans regulation gives absolute authority to the wage supplier: Note Chomsky’s not-so-subtle sarcastic reference to those periods I also alluded to above. Freeing the corporation to operate without oversight puts investors and all people at a disadvantage, inasmuch as they suddenly have zero-barriers to political influence. It’s like saying that Citizens United on steroids would somehow solve our corruption issues. Utter nonsense.
People that think Ron Paul's ideas are dangerous for the country have no faith in Congress. Pres does not make legislation, example 1 look at what Obama has been able to get passed......
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NB_PolQW-N4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
He probably is naive and his economics is bs, but probably sincerely held. Like the "scientific socialists" the "free" market religonists of whatever variety, "conservatives", "libertarians", Ron Paulites" "left" or "right" libertarians think they have the final immutable answer to all social policy issues. Likewise Stalin and Mao believed that sometimes you had to crack some eggs to produce a perfect society (this could be starving a million peasants in the process of collectivization". Similarly the market fundies. If millions of infants starve or die of simple diarrhea it is still does not merit government remedies, but you have to wait for trickle down or the market to eventually solve the problem as any government action would in their simplistic theory make things worse. It is a simplistic, but deeply immoral philosophy. Of course it is very useful to the upper .1% who fund its propagation.
it is under the current system that the corporate world controls the regulators and forces the government (ie: the people, ie: the 99%) to be liable for their malfeasance and funding of their foreign wars. your claims about the koch brothers and libertarians have been repeatedly discredited here...http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread...ight=koch+paul and here...http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread...ight=koch+paul and remember, you were the one who said that if i like mainstream GOP economic policy that ron paul was my guy - that statement alone should render invalid anything you have to say on him. i think you are the one who is misguided. again, this claim of yours has already been totally discredited in the above links. this is asinine. and it is the current regulatory system which pro-corporate, pro-pollution and anti-accountability.
Jo Mama: I think the argument about the Koch's and "what constitutes a libertarian" is a lost cause. As much as it annoys you, SamFisher totally destroyed that silly theory. As for me, I would really like it if you would please quit the tactic of relaying current problems as a justification. I think we all agree the current system has problems - what I want to hear from you (as the resident die-hard libertarian defender here) is how libertarian policy proposes to solve them. As an additional aside - I do appreciate your posts. It's illuminating to hear a staunch libertarian argument.
"destroyed"? - please refresh my memory on that one! look, if glynch's heinous koch brothers were actually supporting libertarian causes and candidates then i would applaud them, but the fact is that they fund, support and endorse mainstream GOP/neocon policy/candidates...which actually makes them much closer to democrats than libertarians. as i have stated before, these so-called libertarians do quite a disservice to the libertarian cause when they give thousands of dollars to republican politicians like jim inhofe and sam brownback, who supported such non-libertarian issues like the iraq war, the patriot act, torture of prisoners, a constitutional ban on gay marriage and military support for israel to name a few. ive answered this multiple times - sorry if you dont like what im saying, but i have answered this question. ive listed several things that can be done to fix the problems caused by republicans and democrats over and over and over and over and over and over again. as for me, i would really like it if you quit defending a system which you agree is hopelessly corrupt and stopped attacking people like paul who are actually wanting to do something to "change" things. as ive said several times, i dont agree w/ paul on everything, but on what i feel are the key issues i believe he is spot on and i would bet that if you listed your key issues you would agree w/ paul more often than your president obama. i notice that your solutions for things like the corruption of the regulatory agencies is that we need more regulation. you are actually advocating for further entrenchment of the things that have caused many of the problems...that is insane! as history has shown, the more regulation we have, the more corruption comes with it. this is like people who argue that the bailouts failed b/c they didnt go far enough. it should be obvious to all that the more money/regulation/government intervention thrown at the problem, the worse it gets. what is definition of insanity again? doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results and that is what you are advocating.
jo, looking over your list, I can't help but wonder...... has Paul ever actually said that those who authorized tougher interrogation techniques should be investigated and prosecuted? I can recall him saying torture is bad, but I'll admit I'm really, really skeptical about whether he's ever said anything on that. Not to mention, once again you play the "If everyone just knew who Ron Paul was, everyone would support him"card. You'd think that anyone who's ever been on the internet, most of the country, would have the opportunity to run into his dedicated supporters at one point or another.
cant find any direct quotes from him saying he would investigate and prosecute, but he supported the the obama administrations initial calls to investigate and was critical of obama and holder when they backed off. so yes, on this one point you got me...nice job! where did i say "if everyone just knew who ron paul was, everyone would support him"? i said if rhad made a list of his key issues he would probably find himself in agreement on more points w/ paul than even w/ obama. again, you have a bad habit of hyperbolizing others statements. its just silly.
Here. You have not answered it at all, and this post is a perfect example. What specific libertarian proposals will make these changes happen (assuming they are even passed through congress)? I'd prefer a policy-related answer, but a philosophical answer is just as good - what part of the libertarian philosophical platform (dramatically reduced legislation, dramatically reduced government services etc) will correct these problems and how? You may see my previous, larger, post for a more gratuitous explanation of the quandary - which I note you ignored. Ok, now you're going pgabriel on me...so nevermind. I'll have to ask someone more level-headed I guess.
and i totally shut down this silliness. at this point im just copying and pasting previous statements... you say this over and over, but that does not make it so. sorry if you dont like what im saying, but ive answered this over and over and over and over again. again, ive answered this over and over again. i cant help it if you dont like my answers, but that doesnt mean im not answering your queries. its just ridiculous at this point, but i like you so ill play along. as ive said to you over and over and over and over and over again, two specific proposals that imo would help would be barney frank and ron pauls proposal to cut the pentagon budget by $1 trillion over 10 years and pauls proposal to audit the fed. and ive said said to you over and over and over again, pauls call to bring home our troops would be a benefit in terms of cost saving and life saving and limb saving. an end to foreign/military aid will save us money, reduce the flow of arms to nations that dont represent our interests and imo, make us safer by not involving us in other nations conflicts. and as ive said over and over and over and over again, pauls priority is slashing military and foreign spending/corporate welfare - not cutting programs that are going to effect the poorest. and from a civil liberties perspective, a paul presidency would remove/roll back the most egregious violations against innocent americans that we have ever seen. an end to the patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, tsa violations, costly and ineffective war on drugs. the things that have happened under bush and obama are dangerous and you know it - imo, this is the most critical issue facing our nation and why paul is 110% better than anyone else. he is the only one willing to stand up for our civil liberties. i realize i am in the vast minority when i say civil liberties issues are my priority issue, but thats where im coming from. i truly believe that the erosion of civil liberties is the most dangerous issue facing the long term prosperity of the average american. and youre going rhadamanthus on me! i find it humorous how seriously you take yourself sometimes.
jo, you're playing the "No true scotsman" card as regards to the Koch brothers. Like this? And let's make this perfectly clear. Everyone who knows anything about Paul knows that this is merely the first step, and that Paul's ultimate goal is the Fed's destruction. Jo, there's no way you can deny this. I'm curious. If rhad knows this like you claim he does, why doesn't he support Paul?
