I agree with him on most of his major policy stances and I think he is the only GOP candidate I truly trust. I don't think he is electable only because of the way he portrayed in the media. He is a truer republican than any other candidate. He believes in true government cuts and civil liberties. Also, his stance on the middle east is spot on. We are only hurting ourselves by remaining an active participant in Israel's hostile policies. We can not afford to run 900 bases in 130+ countries. Spend on defense, cut the militarism, and save this country.
yes, b/c people who dont agree w/ you are not interested in protecting and defending the nation. dont throw this tired neocon/fox news garbage out there...everyone wants whats best for this nation...the argument is over the best way to go about it. you endorse the neocon/bush view of unilateralism, preemptive war and imperial hegemony as a way to maintain united states dominance. i argue that this view is a failure, an unsustainable drain on our blood and treasure and is responsible for most of the troubles we face today. i believe that moving away from these failed policies is what is best for this nation.
Incredibly well said. I wish this could be reiterated more often. It always seems like there are such strong emotions from each side which leads to their preconceived negativity for the other side. I think everyone is looking for what's in the best long term interest of our nation and it's people. The disconnect is how we go about doing it. I truly feel we're at a monumental stage in the world with rhetoric so easily available via the internet. People almost everywhere are learning about politics or hot-button issues and are able to organize accordingly. I just hope the spin can be kept to a minimum and watch dog groups are able to get their voice out there as well. Kudos to everyone in the forum whose able to keep a polite tone and an open mind. I know I catch myself from time to time when I discard another's opinion without truly thinking about their mindset, but ultimately how do we truly learn unless we do so.
Interesting thoughts from Ron Paul's 2008 campaign economic adviser, Peter Schiff. Article in Slate I wonder how closely his views that the U.S. should return to 19th century economic policy and democracy are something that has influenced Paul. Libertarians in this thread and the Libertarian Primer thread seem to suggest that it is unfair to make the blanket statement that Libertarians believe we should return to the 19th century. Schiff takes this argument, and runs with it saying we would be bettered by less democracy. I'm surprised by his gumption in just coming out and saying something seemingly so unpopular, but I can't say I agree. I'll guess I'll pose this question to the Libertarians in this thread, do you agree with Schiff that we are better off with a return to 19th century democracy? If not, why do you think he is wrong?
A bit more context in this video. I know it's FoxNews, but I think it explains a bit more about his opinion on the matter. I believe his thoughts are that politicians now have to play to the people who want to see immediate results over long term stability and that the government needs to be a bit more responsible instead of pandering to the public. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OLT25-tylxk#!
This doesn't address my question. That sounds completely reasonable and is the very same argument Democrats would use to say the government shouldn't be lowering taxes. It's a very general argument that both parties use, but it means next to nothing. I mean who is going to disagree that government needs to act more responsibly, really? So, I'll just ask again:
Sorry, I just felt like your original question was a bit lacking in context. What specifically about 19th century democracy do you feel Schiff was espousing? To answer the question in generic terms, yes, I feel like 19th century democracy had a bit more purity to it, but obviously wasn't perfect. In the past, elected officials were put in place due to their intellectual acumen and past decision making along with their views on current political hot topics. People trusted in them to make decisions that were in their best interests as well as the country's best interest. In today's political realm, voters are more interested in current political hot topics and fail to hold their elected officials accountable for their affiliations and past mistakes. Democracy in a sense has been bastardized due to money correlating to the means to propagandize the public.
........................................uh, wow. I'm far less comfortable talking about American history, but Tammany Hall? Waving the bloody shirt? Hearst? The fact that at times politicians seemed to be campaigning on who could give the biggest pension to Civil War veterans? Spoiler system? I'll put it this way - Paul in the 19th century? He wouldn't even get a penny of the recognition he gets today, as he would have no interest in licking the party bosses' bootstraps. I mean, you've just made a massive list of flat assertions which have no evidence or even meaning behind them.
Ron Paul is more about the whole republic vs democracy debate, a debate I might add that was started in the early days of Greek city-states. A democracy like Israel or Greece or Italy can vote in completely new policies without the checks and balances and rule of law that makes the US government much less powerful to enact change, but keeps it much more stable. I totally get what he means when he says that people are less "free" under direct democracy...Modern Greece until recently voted 8000 Euro a month wages for bus drivers, and while I'm all for paying sustainable wages to the working class, it's not a shock their economy fell like a house of cards. Israel regularly votes in laws that empower censorship and denying the right to free assembly in circumstances that are deemed unhealthy to the regime. Italy has existed for a generation as Berusconi's private fiefdom, despite what might be one of the most diverse political legislative bodies, he was able to deregulate media and buy up most the nation's TV stations and buy elections openly and without prosecution. I don't believe for a moment that Ron Paul wants a return to the days of robber barons and corrupt political bosses, he wants a return to the rule of law. What that actually means is fair debate, but I certainly appreciate the direction. As for the US military: American military power has never been stronger and I don't see why the US needs to have massive bases in Japan or Germany. The Axis Powers aren't about to rearm and the Soviet Union is not about to roll tanks into Frankfurt. Even if you make the argument that the US needs them to keep it's supply train so that it can mobilize quickly to respond to a threat, this still isn't the same thing as maintaining the massive bases it has. The US is not the world's police, and it acts as any nation should: to protect it's own interests. But, in the post-war era many of it's actions, in hindsight were detrimental to international relations and the health of the nation, like in Vietnam or Iran or Central America. The US doesn't have the threats from a major power as it did in the Cold War. It needs to maintain a strong Navy to patrol sea lanes and protect commerce, and it needs specialists in asymmetric warfare, for doing things like taking out bona-fide terrorists who are responsible for killing Americans. I dig his views on the drug war and on personal freedom in general, and I personally believe the Constitution has been the best government on paper so far. Where I mostly diverge from Paul is on his faith in Austrian economics. I respect his opinion, and I've done of my own due diligence to read up on it. I don't want to be needlessly reactionary. But I do think government has a role in certain functions in helping maintain equality and a better quality of life that makes a society more stable. I appreciate defining what those limits are and sticking to them, but in a Ron Paul presidency I'm sure I would differ often where there those lines are drawn. I've got little in common with the Ayn Rand-ite or Koch Brothers brand of "libertarianism" and believe government should be a check on unchecked corporate power. I think strict banking regulation, anti-trust laws and some degree of welfare state is necessary for any civilization to function without abuse by private interests. Capitalism by its nature seeks to expand any way it can. Sometimes that's good, but sometimes it's unhealthy for a society. I see capitalism as a necessary evil - not a magical fix for all the world's problems. Adam Smith was looking to end feudalism, not empower a new kind of elite and a great deal of his own study was about ethics. It bothers me a great deal that the very wealthy often cite the Scottish intellectuals of the Enlightenment as justification for what is essentially exploitation. I think it's just as poor of a reading of Smith as the Soviets had of Marx. I used to consider myself a libertarian, and I still do, just not in the Cato Institute, Libertarian Party, and definitely, definitely not in the Ayn Randian sense, which I find as abhorrent and misguided and utopian as Maoism or Bolshevism.
I'm no economist, and I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty on this board who don't share my opinions and are vastly more knowledgable about economics than I am. Having said that, there is certainly more to the topic than Keynes and Hayek. But I'm definitely not a Thatcherite, if that answers your question. I think it is dangerous to point to any model, call it a success at some point in time, oversimplify your arguments, and emulate it, whether it's Chile or Canada or the Soviet Union.
Good points. My apologies on making the amount of assertions I did. I don't know where I had read what I did, but I definitely inserted my foot in my mouth there. I really need to do my homework on American History. I guess corruption follows us through the ages. BTW thanks for the references, I now have some excellent wikipedia reading to do.
To me ron paul is our only hope, please vote ron paul tell your friends to as well. If he wins i promise he will either change the world or get killed by the government.
Ron Paul wins the US Virgin Islands. So he won something...LOL... 112 to Paul (29%) 101 to Romney (26%) 23 to Santorm (6%) 18 to Gingrich (5%) 130 Uncommitted (34%) Full Results
Dr.Paul is a demi-god, or perhaps god's son brought down to earth, but regardless he has brought to us the one true law law of organizing human society.
'Uncommitted' is not a candidate. Paul got more votes than Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, so he won...
I have to admit I find Deckard's post unsettling. He seems to be arguing for the continuance of American hegemony based on the need to defend American hegemony. I am not as much as an isolationist as Ron Paul but I agree that US foreign policy has caused a lot of our problems and problems around the world. For example consider the US policies in the Middle East have indirectly led to the creation of Al Qaeda (by encouraging Islamic radicals to take up arms to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan). I don't think that the US should withdraw from the international organizations but I don't think never ending US hegemony is a good thing for America or the rest of the world.
